employer engagement with new apprenticeships in the ... · employer engagement with new...

Employer engagementwith new apprenticeshipsin the electrotechnologyindustry

Final Report

Contents ii

Contents1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background........................................................................................................................... 11.2 Methodology......................................................................................................................... 2

Literature review ..................................................................................................................................2Statistical analysis of trends in industry and new apprentice trends .....................................................3Qualitative interview phase with firms in the industry .........................................................................3Survey of employers .............................................................................................................................3

2. KEY FINDINGS............................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Background to the industry................................................................................................... 5Supply and demand in the sector..........................................................................................................5Prospects for increased opportunities for New Apprentices .................................................................6General Attitudes to Apprenticeships ...................................................................................................6

2.2 Key Drivers of employer engagement .................................................................................. 7Firm size...............................................................................................................................................7Labour market structure........................................................................................................................7Business cycle ......................................................................................................................................8Financial incentives..............................................................................................................................8The use of Group Training Companies.................................................................................................9Apprentice supervision and training.....................................................................................................9

2.3 Conclusion and recommendations ...................................................................................... 10School to work arrangements .............................................................................................................10Alternative Pathways..........................................................................................................................10Group Training Companies ................................................................................................................11Targeted Incentives and Employer Subsidies .....................................................................................11Meeting Sectoral Skill Demands ........................................................................................................12Industry and labour market analysis ...................................................................................................12

3. EMPLOYER ENGAGEMENT WITH APPRENTICES.......................................................... 14

3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 143.2 Characteristics of firms in the Electrotechnology Industry................................................. 15

Firm size and trainer type ...................................................................................................................15Firms employing apprentices..............................................................................................................16Market sectors in which firms operate................................................................................................18

3.3 Industry Structure ............................................................................................................... 20Work contracts within the industry.....................................................................................................20Use of sub contractors ........................................................................................................................20Age and industry experience ..............................................................................................................22

3.4 Firms currently employing apprentices............................................................................... 22Reasons for employing apprentices ....................................................................................................23Benefits of employing an apprentice ..................................................................................................24Disadvantages of employing an apprentice ........................................................................................26Changes in apprentice recruitment .....................................................................................................27Preferred mode of apprentice training ................................................................................................28Managing apprentices’ training ..........................................................................................................29

3.5 Firms not currently employing apprentices......................................................................... 30Influences to employ an apprentice in future......................................................................................31

3.6 Employer attitudes toward training and employing apprentices ......................................... 32Employer Outlook ..............................................................................................................................32Employer attitude toward apprentices ................................................................................................33

Contents iii

4. SKILL ISSUES AND APPRENTICE TRENDS IN THE ELECTROTECHNOLOGYINDUSTRY .................................................................................................................................. 39

4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 39Employment .......................................................................................................................................39Apprentices and trainees.....................................................................................................................40Time series (1995 to 2000) for apprentices and trainees ....................................................................40

4.2 Demand for skills in the electrotechnology trades .............................................................. 41Employment levels .............................................................................................................................41Employment trends.............................................................................................................................42

4.3 Skills of the existing electrotechnology trades workforce .................................................. 45Skills of the existing electrotechnology trades workforce ..................................................................45Commencements, number in training and completions, 1995 to 2000...............................................53

4.4 Trends in specific occupations, 1995 to 2000 .................................................................... 56Age .....................................................................................................................................................56AQF level ...........................................................................................................................................59Expected duration...............................................................................................................................62Full time status ...................................................................................................................................64Geographic region by State/Territory .................................................................................................67School attendance status.....................................................................................................................69

4.5 Other training...................................................................................................................... 71Issues of skills shortages.....................................................................................................................73

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 74

APPENDIX 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 76

LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................................... 76

APPENDIX 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 84

QUALITATIVE STUDY - EMPLOYER VIEWS ON APPRENTICESHIPS AND TRAINEESHIPS IN THE

ELECTROTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ....................................................................................................... 84

APPENDIX 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 94

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY DATA .................................................................................... 94

APPENDIX 4 ........................................................................................................................................ 97

A CONSULTANCY TO UNDERTAKE RESEARCH INTO EMPLOYER ENGAGEMENT WITH NEW

APPRENTICESHIPS IN THE ELECTROTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ............................................................... 97

Introduction 1

1. Introduction1.1 BackgroundApprenticeships have been a critical element in skill formation in Australian industry over thelast two centuries. They continue to be central to the supply of skills within many industriesand occupations, particularly in the skilled trades. There has also been strong growth in thenumber of places in vocational education and training and in higher education in the lastdecade. An important aspect of this growth in the last few years at least has been theexpansion in apprenticeship and traineeship places, now combined under the comprehensivetitle of New Apprenticeships.

Nevertheless, there has been growing concern among a number of industry sectors,particularly those in the skilled trade areas, over the adequacy of the supply of skills,particularly apprentices. Various studies of apprenticeships in recent years have revealed arange of barriers to increasing the level of apprentice numbers (e.g. DETYA 1998, DEWRSB1998, 1999, Dumbrell et al forthcoming). These concerns led to a concerted effort by industryand government to examine and overcome skill shortage issues in a range of industry sectors.

In September 1999 the Hon Dr David Kemp MP, Minister for Education, Training and YouthAffairs, met with Chief Executive Officers of the Australian Chamber of Commerce andIndustry, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group to examineskill shortage issues in the traditional trades, including the electrotechnology trades. Thisgave rise to the Commonwealth Government’s National Industry Skills Initiative whichestablished a series of Working Groups to examine skill shortages in particular industrysectors.

The Electrotechnology Working Group was established and prepared a report on skillshortages in electrotechnology in 2000. Based on analytical work carried out by the NCVERand the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB), theNCVER published a report titled Evidence of skill shortages in the electrotechnology trades. In thereport, it was concluded that some skill shortages were emerging in Australia’s skilledelectrotechnology trades.

Data supplied to NCVER by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and SmallBusiness (DEWRSB) indicated that net migration and wastage from the electrotechnologytrades in general is projected to be relatively low and lower than for trades generally.However, DEWRSB’s skilled vacancy survey showed substantial growth in electrotechnologyskilled vacancies during 1998 and 1999.

The report concluded that issues of continuing concern include the level of retention withinapprenticeships as well as the current and expected high levels of demand in certain sectors.In particular, it was found that apprentice and trainee completions are not sufficient to supplyall the projected employment growth and greater priority needs to be placed on trainingpathways outside of the new apprenticeship system.

The report also suggests that, in the future, employers in the electrotechnology trades willneed to consider looking further than teenagers for new entrants as the number of youngpeople aged 15 to 24 years will stagnate in the future. The report also suggests that even morecritical than increasing numbers in training will be the issue of the relevance and quality oftraining for existing workers, as well as new entrants, to the electrotechnology trades to keepapace of the rapid technological changes in the industry. The key findings of the Taskforce'sreport were that

1. There are current skill shortages in identified electrotechnology trade areas despitegrowth in numbers in structured training.

2. There are growing employment rates in high technology areas, especially voice and datacommunications.

Employer engagement with new apprenticeships 2in the electrotechnology industry

3. At the same time, enterprises are undergoing structural changes resulting in increasedcontract work leading to market demands for new skill sets.

4. New apprenticeship opportunities are not adequate and employer investment remainslow. This demonstrates that not enough employers currently recognise the benefits oftraining nor are they aware of the potential for flexible training arrangements under newapprenticeships.

5. There are critical issues for the industry in areas of demand for traditional trade skills andfor new skill sets and the supply of skilled workers:

� High employment growth in specific sectors requiring more skilled tradespersons andnew technology skill sets, and

� Supply of skilled workers remains an issue as qualified tradespersons leave theindustry for alternative careers.

6. Flexibility in addressing skills needs and shortages is affected by licensing, safety andtechnical-based regulation.

7. There is a need for employers, industry and training personnel to consider flexible andalternative pathways for trainees and apprentices in order to:

� Make a career in electrotechnology both more attractive and more accessible, and

� Provide appropriate training pathways that will lead to improved retention rates andoutcomes appropriate to market demand.

In subsequently formulating its Action Plan in July 2000, the Taskforce focussed on threespecific projects arising out of its initial report to the Minister. These projects are

� Careers project

� Employer engagement survey

� Group Training Targeted Initiative Program.

The NCVER has prepared this report for the Electrotechnology Working Group and theCommonwealth Department of Employment, Training and Youth Affairs on the second ofthese as part of the Commonwealth Government’s Industry Skills Initiative through contractwith the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

This report looks specifically at the triggers of employer engagement with apprentices in theelectrotechnology sector against the background of increasing levels of new apprenticeships.

1.2 MethodologyThe project consisted of four parts:

� A literature review

� A statistical analysis of trends in industry and new apprentice trends

� A qualitative interview phase with firms in the industry

� A survey of employers in the industry.

Literature review

The literature review examined previous research on employer uptake of training acrossindustries, focusing on drivers of employer recruitment. It found that most literature hadconcentrated on the processes of training within the enterprise and the benefits of training toemployers. Relatively little research has been conducted on drivers for apprenticeemployment.


Statistical analysis of trends in industry and new apprentice trends

Desktop analysis was undertaken looking at broad employment patterns and forecasts usingABS data and information provided by the DEWRSB. NCVER data on New Apprentices waslooked at based on trends between 1995 and 2000. Issues of skill shortage and trends indemand and supply of skill to the industry were examined against this background.

Qualitative interview phase with firms in the industry

Seventeen interviews were conducted in Brisbane, Sydney and rural NSW between 29 and 31January 2001. Fourteen of these interviews were with firms ranging from sole trader to majoremployer. Seven were traditional trainers (i.e. those who had recruited an apprentice morethan three years ago), two were recent trainers (under three years) and five were non-trainers(i.e. those who had never employed an apprentice). Three group training companies werealso interviewed.

The main purpose of the interviews was to identify the factors influencing an employer’sdecision to engage an apprentice, as well as gaining an understanding of their attitudes andexperiences while working with and training an apprentice.

Survey of employers

A survey of contractors in the electrotechnology industry was undertaken duringMarch/April 2001 to gain a better understanding of their engagement with new apprentices,specifically to understand who does and doesn’t employ an apprentice. The firms surveyedwere sampled from NECA’s membership database. A randomly selected sample wasstratified by State, business size and sector to ensure a representative sample of firms wasinterviewed. A response rate of 70% was achieved. Typically the respondent to the surveyswas the owner/manager of the business (89%) or in the case of larger firms, a senior manager(11%). Group Training Companies were not included in the survey of employers. As a result,the survey does not report on the behavior of group training companies. The survey'semphasis is on how employers engage with apprentices, whether they are employed directlyor through a group training company.

In order to gain a better understanding of firms' motivations the sample was segmented intothree groups:

� Traditional trainers – those that took on an apprentice more than 3 years ago

� Recent trainers – those that had taken on an apprentice for the first time in the last threeyears, and

� Non trainers – those not currently employing an apprentice.

A sample quota was set up for each group to enable a reasonable level of analysis. Theresulting quotas were as follows:

� Traditional trainers – 350

� Recent trainers – 200

� Non trainers – 350.

Firms were initially asked to answer a number of ‘screening’ questions to determine whichsegment they belonged to. As a result, just over 2200 firms were interviewed and reportedinformation on their business characteristics and details on whether they employed anapprentice or not. Of this group, 901 businesses answered further questions relating to whythey did and did not employ apprentices.

Firms are distinguished by size as follows:

• Sole trader

• Two to five employees (micro firm)


• Six to nineteen employees (medium)

• Twenty or more employees (large)

A regression analysis was undertaken based on survey findings.

Apprentices in this study refer to a contract of training which would normally take four yearsof work and on and off-the-job training to complete.


2. Key FindingsThe two principal drivers of apprentice employment in the electrotechnology industry are:

� Firm size, and

� Availability / continuity of work.

Larger firms are much more likely to employ apprentices with 82% of all apprenticesemployed by medium and large firms. About two thirds of all apprentices (68%) wereemployed directly with the remaining third (32%) being hosted through a group trainingcompany.

However, employers attracted to recruiting apprentices in the last three years are more likelyto be in smaller firms than employers who traditionally recruit apprentices (63% compared to37%). This suggests that recent changes to New Apprenticeships may have attracted smalleremployers to recruit apprentices.

Apprentices comprise a considerable proportion of the workforce employed by micro andmedium-sized firms. Approximately one in three micro business employees is an apprenticecompared to one in five among medium-sized and one in ten in larger firms. Micro andmedium sized firms also employ a disproportionate share of apprentices within the industryconsidering their contribution to total employment. Together they account for nearly half ofall apprentice employment (49%) but under a third (31%) of total employment. Largebusinesses, which employ just over half of all apprentices, account for over two thirds (68%)of total employment in the sector. This finding shows that apprentices contribute to a greaterextent to commercial outcomes of smaller businesses in the electrotechnology sector and are amore important source of labour.

2.1 Background to the industry

Supply and demand in the sector

The electrotechnology industry turnover in Australia in 2000 was $50 billion, with thecontracting sector accounting for $6.1 billion.

The industry has the third highest trade workforce behind building and construction and themetal trades (2.1% of total employment in Australia). However, total employment in theelectrotechnology trades declined by 1.7% between 1998 (179,100) and 2000 (173,100).

The supply of skills to meet growing demand is potentially below demand despite havingrelatively high levels of qualified tradespeople in the workforce (70%). This arises because:

� The proportion of the skilled workforce in training is about 8% compared with 11% forthe whole skilled trades workforce

� Retention rates for new apprentices are at around 68%

� The number in training in newer high technology areas remains low compared totraditional areas such as electricians.

Over the period 1995 to 2000 the numbers of apprentices in training grew by 1.0% annuallycompared to 3.6% growth for all trades. Commencements (lead trend indicators) fell at about1% annually with most of the decline occurring between 1999 and 2000 (-20.8%).Communications commencements grew strongly to 2000 (20.7%) from a low base. Growthhas slumped by 36.2% between 1999 and 2000. In 2000 commencement in communicationsconstituted only 3% of total commencements in the sector.

Apprenticeships continue to be dominated by young people (15 to 24) who make up over 85%of all those in training although the older age group (25+) experienced the strongest growth


over the period. The traditional model of four year contracts of training continues to bepreferred (over 95% two years or more).

Overall, the supply and stock of skills in the industry suggest the industry is in a relativelystrong position in terms of skill level. However, changes in the structure of the industry andnew skill demands are likely to put pressure on the industry where currently two thirds of theapprentices in the sector (68.6%) are ’traditional’ electricians with only around 2% incommunications.

Voice and data exemplifies the changing structure of the industry. Although it is a relativelynew and emerging area within the electrotechnology sector, a large proportion of firms (45%)were operated within it. This is also an area likely to be impacted by the use of newtechnologies and will therefore demand different skills to those traditionally required by theindustry.

Prospects for increased opportunities for New Apprentices

Almost half (48%) of all firms interviewed employed an apprentice.

The outlook for recruitment in the industry over the short to medium term is quite positive.According to firms surveyed, the recruitment of apprentices to the industry should increaseover the next three years with about a quarter (27%) of firms currently training an apprenticeexpecting to increase recruitment. This compares with nearly 60% expecting to maintaincurrent levels of recruitment and 10% expecting to reduce recruitment.

The survey reveals a useful distinction between ‘traditional’ trainers, that is those firms thathave been regularly employing apprentices for many years, and ‘recent’ trainers – those thathave employed apprentices only within the last three years.

Recent trainers were more optimistic in their outlook than traditional trainers with 42%expecting to increase recruitment compared to 18%. However, traditional trainers expect tomaintain current levels of recruitment (63%).

Additionally most firms (57%) who had never employed an apprentice in the past would belikely to do so should business prospects improve.

There is very little difference between the average time spent in the industry by the differentsized firms. The only differences are that sole traders (28 years) have slightly more experiencethan all other businesses and, recent trainers (20 years) have less experience than bothtraditional (27 years) and non-trainers (27 years).

General Attitudes to Apprenticeships

All employers overwhelmingly view training apprentices as a good way to bring new skillsinto the industry with non-trainers slightly more inclined to this view (94%) compared totraditional trainers (89%) and recent trainers (91%). The view that more apprentices areneeded to replace skill was equally strongly supported. Given that half the respondents to thesurvey started out as an apprentice themselves this is probably not a surprising result.

Larger employers are more likely to view apprentices as cost-effective to employ with aroundtwo thirds supporting this view (65%).

Most employers agreed that it was difficult to find good people and that young people shoulddo some vocational subjects at school. This view was supported equally among traditionaland recent employers of apprentices and those without any. Almost half employers think thatthe new flexible arrangements make it easier to employ an apprentice with recent trainersmore likely to agree (52%).

The survey found that trainees were virtually unknown in the industry. There would seem tobe a need to investigate whether New Apprenticeships can be extended into the industry intoareas not currently covered by traditional apprenticeships. This needs to be balanced with thevery high levels of support for current arrangements surrounding apprentices.


2.2 Key Drivers of employer engagement

Firm size

Research conducted for this report supports earlier research findings that enterprise size isstrongly associated with both diversity and volume of training (Smith/Hayton 99) and thatapprentice and trainee training is an important component of overall training (Kapuscinski00).

Many of the firms interviewed were very small with 66% employing five or fewer employees.Smaller firms were less likely to employ apprentices with less than a half (46%) of microbusinesses (2-5) taking on apprentices compared with over three quarters (78%) of mediumsize businesses and nearly 90% of large employers.

However, employers attracted to recruiting apprentices in the last three years are more likelyto be in smaller firms than employers who traditionally recruit apprentices (63% compared to37%). This suggests that recent changes to New Apprenticeships may have attracted smalleremployers to recruit apprentices.

Small firms were less likely to employ apprentices directly with only a third (34%) of microbusinesses (2-5 employees) directly employed an apprentice, compared with (61%) of mediumand two thirds (69%) of larger firms.

Non-trainers are predominantly very small businesses. Almost nine out of ten (89%) areeither sole traders or firms with fewer than five employees. Traditional trainers are moreevenly spread across firms with 37% in micro businesses, 42% in medium size firms and 20%in larger businesses. Traditional trainers train more than 4 out of 5 new apprentices (89%)with the majority of these being in larger firms (49%).

Firm size also correlates closely with uptake of apprentices and larger employers were morelikely to think they got better skilled workers by employing apprentices (10%) than micro-businesses (5%).

The challenge for the industry is to retain current levels of apprenticeship uptake mostimportantly in the new and emerging areas such as communications/ voice and data.Predominantly larger firms (6+ employees) operate in this sector of the industry although asubstantial proportion (43%) of micro businesses (2 to 5 employees) also operate in the sector.This was the second largest sector of operations for micro businesses after light and power (inwhich most firms reported operating 88%).

Labour market structure

Mitigating factors in future recruitment include both lack of work and the “type” of work.These two factors relate closely to the structure of the industry which is made up to a largeextent of small contractors in a highly volatile market dominated by short contract cycles. Inaddition, the type of work in the industry requires high level skill which makes it difficult toemploy inexperienced and unskilled labour.

The industry is one where firms mainly engage in short term contracts (53% of thosesurveyed) and where long term contracts are relatively uncommon with only a quarter offirms engaging in this type of contract. Sole traders (10%), micro businesses (20%) and non-trainers (17%) were even less likely to engage in long term contracts and as a result wouldhave to contend with an even more volatile working environment.

About two-thirds of firms employing an apprentice were accustomed to using sub-contractorsfrom within the industry to help complete jobs. Most identified the need for highly skilledworkers as the reason for using sub contractors (58% of traditional trainers and 63% of recenttrainers).

For non-trainers, the flexibility of employing sub-contractors rated nearly as highly (44%) asthe need for skilled workers (49%). For micro firms, skills were more important than forlarger firms.


Of those who did not employ apprentices, over a third (37%) cited the “nature of work” as areason for not taking on apprentices. Capacity to expand (“I just want to stay small”) rankedsecond followed by “insufficient work”. As noted, earlier, reasons given for employingcontractors in place of apprentices because of the need for high skill levels, coupled withregulatory requirements may well account for the large proportion citing “nature of work” asan obstacle to employment. About a half of these employers said they might consider takingon an apprentice in future. Overwhelmingly the factor most likely to influence this decisionwas an increase in workload with well over half (57%) responding positively.

Business cycle

The report also supports earlier hypotheses that the role of the business cycle and theexistence of a training culture appear to have an impact on provision of apprentice and traineetraining (Kapuscinski 2000).

The report confirms economic and labour market reasons as a key driver of employer uptakeof apprentices. This is particularly evident for employers who have recently taken onapprentices over half (53%) of whom did so to get new labour, and for those who have nottaken on apprentices at all, over half (57%) of whom said they would if they had more work.This was less significant for large firms.

Recent trainers seemed to be more likely to be motivated by economic and labour marketreasons. They were concerned to see their labour supply maintained, although about aquarter of recent trainers were also keen to put something back into the industry.

Traditional trainers appeared to be motivated quite strongly by what might be called altruisticreasons in addition to labour market needs. They wanted to put something back into theindustry and to preserve their enterprise’s traditions in training tradespersons. Slightly moreemployers in this group also thought apprentices were a cost-effective source of labour (14%compared to 12%). Their longer experience may have given these employers a betterappreciation of the returns to investment reaped by the enterprise (and the industry) overtime as well as the benefits of apprenticeships in ensuring a supply of skilled labour.

For traditional employers of apprentices, the capacity to train to their own requirements (37%,"allows us to train in the company ways") and to return something back to the industry (36%)were also prominent drivers in addition to labour market requirements (19%).

The main benefits of taking on an apprentice were seen as the capacity for flexible andcustomised training (“train to suit the way I work”: 47%), followed some considerable waybehind by “a cost effective source of labour” (23%). These responses were similar across allfirm sizes with flexibility and customisation slightly more important to larger firms and costslightly more important to smaller firms.

Financial incentives

Historical data indicates that financial incentives do have a positive influence on the behaviorof firms regarding the employment of apprentices (NCVER:2001). When respondents werepresented with the statement "current financial incentives are sufficient", employers stronglydisagreed, with 50% of traditional and recent trainers sharing this view and 42% of non-trainers. Also there is a feeling by some firms, particularly non-trainers (36%) that employingapprentices was not cost effective. Existing trainers while very positive about the need totrain apprentices nevertheless viewed apprentices as expensive with one in five trainers (19%)reporting that apprentices 'cost you money'.

In addition one in eight (13%) non-trainers indicated they would be influenced by greaterfinancial incentives to take on an apprentice. Given the views reported by employers, it wouldappear there is scope for a more targeted incentive regime aimed at new and prospectiveemployers. Such a scheme may have dividends in the immediate future.


The use of Group Training Companies

While the report does not focus on the behaviour of group training companies, it does provideuseful information on the extent of group training usage by businesses.

It seems that for most employers the experience of using a GTC is a positive one. Only aquarter (23%) of those who acted as GTC hosts believed direct employment to be preferable tousing a GTC.

Even though employers appear to be happy using GTCs the most preferred method (37%) ofemployment is to directly employ an apprentice. Less than one in five (18%) employerscurrently host an apprentice through a GTC.

In terms of industry structure, the most striking feature of the electrotechnology industry isthe high proportion of small firms - one in five (20%) businesses are sole traders and almosthalf (46%) have between 2-5 employees. Given the structure of the industry it is surprising tosee that larger firms are more likely to employ an apprentice through a group trainingcompany than smaller firms. This is even more surprising given that one of the aims of GroupTraining Companies is to facilitate participation in the apprenticeship system by smallenterprises.

It is clear that group training companies have become a significant ’player’ in the employmentof apprentices within the industry. As a result, the role and extent of Group TrainingCompanies should be examined to see if there is greater capacity to assist small and mediumsize firms to employ apprentices in the electrotechnology sector. Currently, only 14% of microbusinesses use group training companies compared to 29% of medium and nearly half oflarger companies (43%).

Apprentice supervision and training

Many of the barriers to and perceived disadvantages in employing apprentices seemed to berelated to the youthfulness and lack of skills and experience of apprentices and the associatedproblem that their management cost the employer skilled staff resources. This was perceivedas an overall cost to the firm. This perception was consistent across firm size and betweenrecent and traditional trainers with 24% of employers of the view that "apprentices do nothave skills in early years to be of much use". Twenty three percent thought they took "a lot ofsupervision". Nineteen per cent thought "they cost you money".

It is apparent also from the survey that many employers consider that young people oftenreceive inadequate preparation at school for entry to an apprenticeship.

It was also apparent that most tradesmen involved in managing apprentices have not had anyspecific training in this role. Most employers regarded such training as unnecessary, often onthe basis that the tradesmen had been apprentices once themselves. The survey found, forexample, that three-quarters of those firms that did have regular meetings with theirapprentices to review their progress had tradesmen trained in managing apprentices. It doesseem therefore that such training has a positive impact on training practices.

The survey results also suggest that most survey respondents had limited procedures forreviewing the progress of their apprentices. It is likely that improved levels of support forapprentice supervisors in the area of managing apprentices and other training in the industrywould improve the ability of supervising tradesmen to relate to young people and providespecific skills in reviewing progress.


2.3 Conclusion and recommendationsThe electrotechnology industry is continuing to expand and is moving into increasingly highskilled areas of new technology. Although the industry appears to enjoy reasonable levels ofskill and qualifications in its workforce, particular issues related to the business and economiccycle which drive employment may mean reduced supply of adequate skill levels in thefuture. Coupled with an increasing use of sub-contracting and reduced firm size, these factorsmay inhibit future growth and expansion in New Apprenticeships without furtherintervention by both industry and government.

The over riding issue of a potentially volatile economic and business cycle is an on-goingproblem in a number of trades, particularly building and construction and electrotechnology.

Despite these structural constraints, the outlook for further growth in New Apprenticeshipsappears to be reasonably optimistic with expansion expected in the short term to mediumterm. There is also a high level of support among employers in the electrotechnology industryfor the apprenticeship system and general satisfaction with current arrangements in place fortaking on apprentices.

The biggest disincentive for employers in recruiting apprentices are structural and labourmarket issues relating to the predominantly contractual nature of work and the high level ofskill increasingly demanded of employees in the industry. These reasons have a far greaterimpact on micro firms and sole traders which dominate the industry.

In response to the report findings the following key areas have been identified to enhancefuture growth of New Apprenticeships and skills training in the electrotechnology industry.

School to work arrangements

Employers are concerned with the level of skills of new entrants, especially in the early yearsof their apprenticeship. Most agreed (more than three quarters of employers) that youngpeople should do some vocational training in school. In addition, many employers regard thenecessary supervisory ’costs’ associated with ensuring new entrants develop a high level ofskills as an expensive overhead. School to work issues are therefore a concern and need to beaddressed.

The Business Education Partnership Advocate (BEPA) arrangements should be integrated intoany strategy that addresses the issue of school to work transition. The BEPA work undertakento date should provide valuable data in the formulation of any future strategy.

It is recommended that:

• resources be provided to support and build on the work already undertaken under BEPAto improve the skills of new entrants to the industry.

Alternative Pathways

The traditional four-year apprenticeship has served the sector well and continues to do so.However, there is an increasing demand evidenced by this research that more flexiblearrangements are needed to widen access for new entrants to the industry. This researchidentifies demand for high level skills as a disincentive for apprenticeship recruitment to meetthe sector’s labour and skill needs with 49% of non-training employers citing this as a reasonsfor not using apprentices. It is likely that this is also arises from the need to meet licensingarrangements.

The need for flexibility both within current apprenticeship and licensing requirements as wellas strategies to meet occupational skill requirements through alternative pathways will becritical to meeting ongoing skill needs of the sector. Work needs to be undertaken to identifypossible alternative pathways so that new skill formation is not inhibited. The GTC TargetedPlacement Program is an example which will provide a sound basis for future work on thisissue.



� alternative pathways be further investigated, developed and trialled over the next threeyears

� such pathways to encompass the need for high skill levels at point of entry to the sectorand alternatives (eg school-based) to industry pathways

� industry aggressively promote and advocate alternative pathways to businesses.

Group Training Companies

The role of Group Training Companies in providing continuity of employment and training toapprentices and to assisting employers to overcome difficulties experienced withadministrative, legislative and supervisory responsibility for apprentices is evident in theindustry.

The emphasis in this report has been on how employers engage with apprentices rather thanon the behaviour of GTCs. As such the behaviour of GTC employers in contrast to directemployment is largely unknown and needs to further analysed. Nevertheless it is clear fromthe findings that GTCs provide a service to employers which encourages uptake ofapprentices. As such they contribute to employer engagement and their capacity to do thisshould be further utilised by government.

The predominance of large firms using GTCs is further evidence of the success of the schemein attracting employers. Nevertheless, further strategies are needed to attract smalleremployers to GTCs given their overall dominance of the sector. The capacity of sole traders torecruit apprentices even with the assistance of GTCs is in some doubt given theirpredominance among non-trainers. Currently, only 14% of micro businesses use grouptraining companies compared to 29% of medium and nearly half of larger companies (43%).There is likely to be considerable potential among micro employers and it is suggested thatthis area be looked as a priority by industry, government and GTC.


• targeted resources be provided to increase the number of group trainingelectrotechnology projects under the Group Training New Apprenticeships TargetedInitiatives Programme for small and medium sized firms;

• the benefits of group training be promoted/marketed to medium sized firms in theindustry.

• further work be undertaken to establish the consistency between the survey findings ofdirect employment with employment through GTCs.

Targeted Incentives and Employer Subsidies

Incentives can influence the engagement decision and 50% of employers thought currentincentives were insufficient. Historical evidence (NCVER:2001) suggests a correlationbetween employer recruitment of apprentices and the introduction of incentives andsubsidies. However, across the board changes may not be needed if incentives and subsidiescan be targeted to specific areas of skill need. These areas should first be identified throughindustry and labour market analysis. This will ensure available resources are strategicallyyapplied and results can be monitored and evaluated.

Incentive arrangements could

� Identify employers in those sectors where demand is expected to exceed supply

� Encourage non-training employers to take on an apprentice

� Encourage traditional training employers to continue taking on apprentices

� Encourage traditional training employers to increase their commitment.



� a review of current levels of incentive and subsidy arrangements be undertaken whichidentify areas of undersupply

� any such review should take particular note of areas of emerging skill need in theelectrotechnology area, specifically in the vital areas of communication/ voice and dataalready noted

� a targeted incentives regime be developed taking into account the above.

Meeting Sectoral Skill Demands

This report and earlier research (NCVER:1999) shows skill shortages within the industry aresectoral with growth patterns varying across occupations. Communications/ voice and datahave been identified in this report as areas of growth.

To meet this need, it is proposed that a targeted brokerage role between industry, trainingproviders and potential new employers be established within industry. In large part theinfrastructure to do this already exists through group training companies, Industry SkillCentres and existing industry bodies and New Apprenticeship Centres.

The position would

� provide a placement service for apprentices and employers, having regard to identifiedskill demands emerging from industry and labour market analyses

� Insure necessary training was available and that existing training is tailored to meet newrequirements.

� Facilitate placement in regions of high demand and within appropriate firms

� Provide input to any industry analysis of skill demand.

Industry and labour market analysis

The challenges facing the Electrotechnology industry will change as new technologiesbecomes outdated and new production methods of providing services take hold. The abilityto fully understand changes that are taking place in a timely manner is crucial in order to meetthe industries constantly changing skill requirements. Research, such as this report, that pullstogether statistics from a variety of sources on a regular basis is important for the industry tostay abreast of its skill and employment needs.

While there is currently a considerable quantum of research and statistics available throughsuch agencies as DEWRSB, NCVER and the ABS, it needs to be tailored to the specific needsof the Electrotechnology Industry. Statistics that focus on tracking skill demand issues withinparticular industry sectors are important. More emphasise is needed on the analysis of sectorspecific labour market trends and there impact on the industry. This information needs to beproduced on a regular and timely basis so that it becomes an integral part of the planningprocesses that industry and government undertake.

Key elements of analysis include:

� Identifying emerging skill sets and new requirements

� Econometric studies to identify demand in each sector

� Statistical analysis of labour force demand and supply

� Trend analysis and projections of apprentice and other key data.

Such information should be made available through a website that allows access tosophisticated and targeted information. Such information should be available to all those inthe industry involved in human resource issues in the industry including industryassociations, employers, RTOs, government and others.



� further resources be made available so that existing information relating to skill shortagescan be tailored to the needs of the Electrotechnology Industry (and possibly others)

� such information be available through a website and build on existing work.


3. Employer Engagementwith Apprentices

3.1 OverviewThe overall conclusion to be drawn from the survey is that the outlook for apprenticerecruitment in the industry over the short to medium term is quite positive. According to theresponses given by participants in the survey the recruitment of apprentices in the industryshould increase over the next 3 years, given that more than a quarter (27%) of firms currentlytraining apprentices expect to increase their recruitment compared with about 10% who expectto reduce their recruitment.

Additionally, most of those firms currently not employing apprentices would be likely toconsider taking on an apprentice if their business prospects improved. For both thosecurrently training apprentices and those not, the offering of further financial incentives did notappear to be a significant issue. Current trainers did not perceive financial incentives as failingto cover their costs, while only about 13% of non-trainers rated increasing financial incentivesas an incentive to take on apprentices in the future. Nevertheless a more targeted incentiveregime aimed at new and prospective employers may have dividends in the immediate futureas about one in five trainers (19%) think apprentices ’cost you money’.

Clearly then the increase in apprentice intake in the industry will be determined by economicconditions over the next three, however the trend is likely to be positive.

The survey reveals a useful distinction between ‘traditional’ trainers, that is those firms thathave been regularly employing apprentices for many years, and ‘recent’ trainers – those thathave employed apprentices only within the last three years.

Recent trainers seemed to be more likely to be motivated by economic and labour marketreasons. They were concerned to see their labour supply maintained, although about a quarterof recent trainers were also keen to put something back into the industry. The traditionaltrainers appeared to be motivated quite strongly by what might be called altruistic reasons inaddition to labour market needs. They wanted to put something back into the industry and topreserve their enterprise’s traditions in training tradespersons. Their longer experience mayhave given these employers a better appreciation of the returns to investment reaped by theenterprise (and the industry) over time as well as the benefits of apprenticeships in ensuring asupply of skilled labour. Certainly larger employers were more likely to think they got betterskilled workers by employing apprentices (10%) than the micro-businesses (5%).

Firms not currently employing apprentices, but which had previously had apprentices,identified a lack of work as the main barrier to taking on apprentices. An increase in thedemand for their services was identified as the best incentive to take on an apprentice.

The over riding issue of the economic and business cycle is a more intractable problem but isone that may be partly overcome by multiskilling between traditional electrotechnology tradeswith New Apprenticeships or even between trades so as to mitigate the effects of seasonal andcyclical down turns on apprentices. Such an approach would facilitate movement in and out ofthe sector to other contract opportunities.

Firm size also correlates highly with the capacity and willingness of employers to take onapprentices, with larger firms more likely to directly employ apprentices. Less than a half(46%) of micro businesses (2-5 employees) employed an apprentice, compared with over threequarters (78%) of medium and nearly 90% of larger firms. The role and extent of group trainingcompanies should be examined to see if there is greater capacity to assist small and mediumsize firms to employ apprentices in the electrotechnology sector. Currently only 14%of microbusinesses use group training companies compared to a third (43%) of larger businesses.

Employer engagement with new apprenticeshipsin the electrotechnology industry

15

Many of the barriers to and perceived disadvantages in employing apprentices seemed to berelated to the youthfulness and lack of skills and experience of apprentices and the associatedproblem that their management cost the employer skilled staff resources.

It was also apparent that most tradesmen involved in managing apprentices have not had anyspecific training in this role. Most employers regarded such training as unnecessary, often onthe basis that the tradesmen had been apprentices once themselves. The survey found, forexample, that three-quarters of those firms that did have regular meetings with theirapprentices to review their progress had tradesmen trained in managing apprentices. It doesseem therefore that such training has a positive impact on training practices.

The survey results also suggest that most survey respondents had limited procedures forreviewing the progress of their apprentices. It is likely that improved levels of support forapprentice supervisors in the area managing apprentices and other training in the industrywould improve the ability of supervising tradesmen to relate to young people and providespecific skills in reviewing progress.

The survey found that trainees were virtually unknown in the industry, with more than half ofthe trainees employed in the surveyed firms all employed in just one firm. There would seemto be a need to investigate whether New Apprenticeships can be extended into the industryinto areas not currently covered by traditional apprenticeships.

3.2 Characteristics of firms in the Electrotechnology Industry

Firm size and trainer type

The most striking feature of the industry is the high proportion of small firms within it. One infive (20%) businesses are sole traders and almost half (46%) had between 2-5 employees (seeTable 1) at the site where the survey was conducted. Only one in ten businesses (10%) had 20or more employees.

Also from Table 1 it can be seen that about half of all businesses surveyed have been classifiedas non trainers (49%), that is they do not currently employ an apprentice. About four in ten(41%) are traditional trainers and one in ten (10%) are considered recent trainers.

Traditionally, when an analysis is undertaken by firm size, the categories are defined as small(1-19 employees), medium (20-49 employees) and large (100 plus employees). However, giventhe structure of the electrotechnology industry an analysis has been undertaken which definesbusinesses in the following way:

• Sole trader (1 person business)

• Micro businesses (2-5 employees)

• Medium businesses (6-19 employees)

• Large businesses (20 employees or more)


16

Table 1 Size of firms within the electrotechnology industry by trainer type

Traditionaltrainers

Recenttrainers

Non-trainer AllBusinesses

% % % %

sole trader (1) 41 20micro business (2-5) 37 63 48 46medium (6-19) 42 29 9 25large (20+) 20 8 2 10Total 41 10 49 100

Non trainers are predominantly very small businesses. Almost nine out of every ten (88%) areeither sole traders or businesses with less than 5 employees. On the other hand traditionaltrainers are characterised by a more even spread of firm sizes. About a third (37%) are micro-businesses, more than a third (42%) are medium sized business and 20% are large businesses.Recent trainers are quite different again and lie somewhere between the non-trainers andtraditional trainers. Nearly two thirds are micro-businesses (63%), almost a third (29%) aremedium sized businesses and less than one in ten (8%) are large businesses.

Firms employing apprentices

Business size is the single biggest determinate of apprentice employment. The biggestemployers of apprentices are the larger sized firms. Figure 1 indicates that 51% of apprenticesare employed in firms who have 20 or more employees even though these firms comprise only10% of all businesses within the industry. The next largest employer of apprentices is firmswith 6-19 employees (medium) who account for about a third of employment (31%). Thesefirms represent approximately a quarter of all businesses in the industry. Micro-businesses,while accounting for almost half of all businesses in the industry employ only 18% of theapprentices.

The difference in the size of the businesses has direct implications for the employment ofapprentices. Traditional trainers, which are made up of relatively high numbers of mediumand large business, are responsible for employing 89% of apprentices. Recent trainers employonly 11 % of apprentices within the industry.

Figure 1: Apprentice employment by trainer type and size of business

Just over a third of businesses (37%) within the survey employed an apprentice directly andalmost a fifth (18%) hosted an apprentice through a group training company. Combining thesetwo types of apprentice employment shows that 48% of businesses within the industrycurrently have an apprentice.

18

27

31

49

2

51

513 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Traditional trainer Recent trainers Total

%

large (20+)medium (6-19)micro business (2-5)


17

As can be seen from Table 2 below smaller firms are less likely to employ an apprentice thanlarger firms. Less than half (46%) the micro businesses employed an apprentice compared toover three quarters (78%) of medium and nearly 90% of large firms.

Table 2 Firms that employ/host at least one apprentice by firm size and trainer type

Employs Apprenticedirectly

Hosts an apprenticethrough a GTC

Employs/hosts anapprentice of anykind

% % %

micro business (2-5) 34 14 46medium (6-19) 62 29 78large (20+) 69 43 86

Traditional trainers 76 36 98Recent trainers 69 31 94

Total 37 18 48

Fewer than 14% of firms in the 2-5 size group were hosts to GTC apprentices, a surprisingresult given that one of the aims of GTCs is to facilitate participation in the apprenticeshipsystem by small enterprises. In fact Table 2 shows clearly that the bigger the company the morelikely they are to utilise GTCs.

The role of group training companies in providing continuity of employment and training toapprentices and to assisting employers to overcome difficulties experienced withadministrative, legislative and supervisory responsibility for apprentices is evident in theindustry.

The predominance of medium size and large firms use of GTCs is further evidence in thesuccess of the scheme in attracting employers. Nevertheless, further strategies are needed toattract smaller employers to GTCs given their overall dominance of the sector. The capacity ofsole traders to recruit apprentices even with the assistance of GTCs is in some doubt given theirpredominance among non-trainers. However, there is likely to be considerable potentialamong micro employers and it is suggested that this area be looked as a priority by industry,government and GTC.

Table 3 Ratio of apprentices to employees by size of business and trainer type at surveylocation

Business Size (number of employees) and Trainer Type Ratio Proportionof totalemployment%

sole traders n.a. 2

micro (2-5) 0.35 12

medium (6-19) 0.22 19

large (20+) 0.1 68

Traditional Trainer 0.29 71

Recent Trainer 0.26 11

Non-Trainers n.a. 18


18

Apprentices comprise a considerable proportion of the workforce employed by micro andmedium-sized firms. Approximately one in three micro business employees is an apprenticecompared to one in five among medium-sized and one in ten in larger firms (see Table 3). Inaddition, micro and medium sized firms employ a disproportionately larger share ofapprentices than large firms when the total employment of firms is analysed. Medium sizedbusinesses employ nearly a third of all apprentices in the sector but account for only 19% oftotal employment. Similarly, micro businesses employ 18% of apprentices but account only12% of total employment in the sector. Large firms on the other hand employ half of allapprentices but account for over two thirds (68%) of all employment in the sector

These findings show that apprentices contribute to a large extent to commercial outcomes ofsmaller businesses in the electrotechnology sector and are a more important source of labour.It also indicates that for smaller businesses the decision to employ an apprentice and the choiceof the right candidate is more likely to be of much higher importance than for larger firms. Inaddition, smaller businesses are more likely to be affected by changes to apprentice numbers ormodifications to the apprenticeship system.

Table 4 Number of apprentices by size of firm and trainer type

1 2 3-5 6 +

% % % %

micro business (2-5) 80 18 2medium (6-19) 33 34 31 2large (20+) 11 6 30 53

Traditional trainers 43 24 21 12Recent trainers 74 16 8 2

Total 49 22 19 10

Apprentices tend to be employed in small numbers within firms with half (49%) the trainersemploying only one apprentice with another quarter (22%) employing 2 apprentices. Only 10%of trainers employed more than 5 apprentices.

As would be expected, larger firms were more likely to employ more then 5 apprentices thansmaller firms. Like wise, traditional trainers were also more likely than recent trainers toemploy more than 5 apprentices. This is not unexpected given there is a higher proportion oflarger firms within the traditional trainer group.

Very few firms employed trainees with only 8% reporting this in the survey. Again it was thelarger firms that were more likely to employ trainees with almost a quarter (22%) of largebusinesses and one in ten (10%) medium sized businesses doing so. The total number oftrainees employed were split fairly evenly between the large and medium sized firms. Traineeswere virtually non existent within micro- businesses.

Traditional (12%) and recent trainers (13%) were as likely as each other to employ a trainee.Although traditional trainers accounted for nearly nine out of every ten (87%) employed. Noinformation was provided on the nature of the traineeships undertaken by these trainees whichmakes further conclusions about them more difficult.

Market sectors in which firms operate

A Major characteristic of the industry is that firms of all sizes tend to work in a number ofdifferent sectors and undertake quite different types of work.

As can be seen from Table 5, 83% of firms operated in the commercial sector, while about two-thirdsoperated in the residential (68%) and industrial sectors (65%). Only a third operated within the retailsector (32%). This is generally true for firms of all sizes however there are some differences. Soletraders tended to be more concentrated in the residential sector than other sized firms and less so in


19

the industrial sector. Non trainers were also slightly more likely to work in the residential sectorthan were traditional or recent trainers. This is not surprising given that over a third of non-trainersare sole traders. The residential sector is more volatile than the other sectors. This uncertainty wouldmake work planning more difficult and presumably make it more difficult to commit to long termemployment associated with apprentices.

Table 5 Market sectors within which firms operate

Residential Commercial Industrial Retail Other

% % % % %

sole trader (1) 85 78 57 28 2micro business (2-5) 75 85 65 32 1medium (6-19) 56 85 67 33 1large (20+) 33 81 76 37 4

Traditional trainers 63 88 70 36 1Recent trainers 68 88 65 39 3Non trainers 73 79 61 28 1Total 68 83 65 32 2

N.B. Multiple responses mean percentage total more than 100

In addition to their market sector, firms were asked to describe the type of work theyundertook. The next table shows the type of work that surveyed firms reported undertaking.

Table 6 Type of work undertaken size of firm and trainer type

Voice anddata

Light andand power

Security Fireevacuation

Airconditioning

Buildingautomation

% % % % % %

sole trader (1) 29 95 25 13 37 20micro business (2-5) 43 90 33 16 39 33medium (6-19) 54 84 36 23 40 42large (20+) 58 77 41 34 32 48

Traditional trainers 55 89 39 24 42 44Recent trainers 44 89 33 21 41 31Non trainers 35 88 28 14 35 27

Total 45 88 33 19 38 34

N.B. Multiple responses mean percentage total more than 100

Again firms tended to undertake a range of different types of work. Almost 90% of firms wereinvolved in light and power, although a relatively large proportion also operated in the areas ofvoice and data (45%) and air conditioning/refrigeration (38%). About one third operated in thesecurity and building automation areas. This was generally true of all businesses regardless oftheir size or whether they trained apprentices or not.

However, there were some difference in the type of firms undertaking voice and data andbuilding automation work. Sole traders (29%) and to a lesser extent micro-businesses (43%)were less likely to participate in these areas than larger businesses. Non-trainers (35% ) werealso less likely to work in voice and data than trainers of any type.


20

3.3 Industry Structure

Work contracts within the industry

The electrotechnology industry is one where businesses mainly engage in short term contracts(53%) or small ad-hoc jobs (52%). Long-term contracts are relatively uncommon in the industrywith only a quarter of firms mainly engaging in this form of work contract. Sole traders (10%),micro businesses (20%) and non-trainers (17%) were even less likely to engage in long termcontracts then other businesses and as a result would have to contend with a more volatileworking environment. The more volatile working environment would generate greaterbusiness uncertainly, which would not be conducive to long term employment contracts suchas an apprenticeship.

Table 7 Type of work contracts by size of firm and trainer type

Mainly longterm

Mainly shortterm

Small ad hocjobs

Other

% % % %

sole trader (1) 10 49 64 4micro business (2-5) 20 61 54 5medium (6-19) 37 49 46 7large (20+) 54 37 38 7

Traditional trainers 33 53 47 6Recent trainers 30 63 55 2Non trainers 17 52 56 6

Total 25 53 52 6N.B. Multiple responses mean percentage total more than 100

Use of sub contractors

The use of sub-contractors within the industry is widespread with two thirds of firms makinguse of this form of labour hire. Micro-businesses were more likely to use sub-contracted labourthen other sized firms, while traditional trainers are less likely than both recent and non-trainers.

About two-thirds of firms employing apprentices also were in the habit of using sub-contractors from within the industry to help complete jobs. Most identified the need for highlyskilled workers as the reason for using sub-contractors (Fig. 2). However, these employers alsoconsider the flexibility of the working arrangement when deciding whether or not to engage asub-contractor. For policy makers this is important as it opens up an opportunity to increasethe use of apprentices by enhancing the role of group training companies which are able tooffer the desired flexibility. When non-trainers were asked why they use sub-contractedtradesmen rather than apprentices the aspect of flexibility was nearly as important to them asthe issue of skills (Fig. 3). This finding further underlines the role that group trainingcompanies may able to play in increasing apprentice numbers in the electrotechnologyindustry.


21

Table 8 Use of sub-contractors by size of firm and trainer type

Firm currentlyusing sub-contractors%

sole trader (1) 67micro business (2-5) 74medium (6-19) 66large (20+) 59

Traditional trainers 64Recent trainers 73Non trainers 70Total 68

Figure 2: Most trainers that use sub-contractors instead of apprentices do so because they require highly skilledworkers; N = 372; multiple responses mean percentages total more than 100

Figure 3: When non-trainers decide whether to use a sub-contracted tradesmen or an apprentice flexibility of thearrangement is nearly as important as skills; N = 245; multiple responses mean percentages total more than 100

Reasons for using sub-contractors instead of apprentices

010203040506070

I neededhighlyskilled

workers

I can’tafford the

time tosupervise

anapprenticeall the time

It’scheaper to

pay atradesmanby the hour

than totake on anapprentice

It’s moreflexible toemploy a

tradesman

Other

%Traditional trainerRecent trainer

R e a s o n s w h y n o n -tra in e rs u se su b -c o n tra c te d tra d e s m e n in s te a d o f a p p re n tic e s

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

I n e e d m o reh ig h lysk ille d

w o rke rs

I ca n ’ta ffo rd th e

tim e tosu p e rv ise

a na p p re n ticea ll th e t im e

It ’s c h e a p e rto p a y a

tra d e sm a nb y th e h o u rth a n to ta k e

o n a na p p re n tice

It ’s m o refle x ib le toe m p lo y a

tra d e sm a n

O th e r

%

1 (s o le tra d e r)2 - 56 - 1 92 0 +


22

Age and industry experience

The average age of the survey respondents was 45 years. The average age of respondentswithin the different sized businesses was close to this average. Recent trainers were on averagea younger (40 years) group of respondents than both traditional (46 years) and non-trainers(46 years). It is one of the few areas where traditional trainers are actually similar to non-trainers. It also highlights an important point. It indicates that on average recent trainers areonly becoming trainers after they have had a reasonable level of experience within theindustry. Most recent trainers are joining the trainer ranks in their mid-thirties.

This is reinforced when you consider the time the different groups have spent in the industry.Again there is very little difference between the average time spent in the industry by thedifferent sized firms. The only differences are that sole traders (28 years) have slightly moreexperience than all other businesses and, recent trainers (20 years) have less experience thanboth traditional (27 years) and non-trainers (27 years).

What this shows in that non-trainers have probably already made up their mind to be just thatnon-trainers. Given their age it is unlikely that many of this group will have the motivation,energy and/or dedication required to suddenly create a business that will grow to a size that islikely to employ apprentices. It appears that if non-trainers have not formed a reasonably sizedbusiness by the age of forty then they are probably unlikely to do so ever.

Table 9 Average age and time spent in industry by size of firm and trainer type

Age(average)

Time spent inindustry (average)

% %

sole trader (1) 47 28micro business (2-5) 44 25medium (6-19) 44 25large (20+) 46 25

Traditional trainers 46 27Recent trainers 40 20Non trainers 46 27

Total (Average) 45 25

Recent trainers are relatively young, have good experience and the motivation to take on thehigher level managerial tasks required of apprenticeship employment. They are probably themore dynamic cohort of the tradesmen group. In fact, it would be interesting to know howmuch time recent trainers spend on their own or in a business without an apprentice, beforethey decide to take on an apprentice. This information was not obtained in the survey.

An analysis was undertaken of the survey data by State, where sample size permitted.Generally there were few differences between States on most of the key items. Two differencesthat did emerge were that trainers within Western Australia were more likely to use grouptraining companies than other States, and firms within New South Wales were more likely touse the services of sub contractors than other States.

3.4 Firms currently employing apprentices

The following section looks at the specific views of current trainers within the industry as towhy they employ apprentices and the perceived advantages and disadvantages of doing so. Italso looks at the differences and similarities in views expressed by both recent and traditionaltrainers. Past and future recruitment patterns are briefly investigated as well as trainerspreferred method of training and how they manage their existing apprentices.


23

Reasons for employing apprentices

Traditional and recent trainers were asked similar but slightly different questions around thereasons they take on apprentices. Recent trainers were asked why they had recently decided totake on an apprentice while traditional trainers were asked why they customarily take onapprentices. Although the questions were phrased differently they are close enough forcomparison purposes.

Firstly, there were a number of similarities between the two groups of trainers. The reasonsgiven by trainers can be categorised into two types of responses, more hard-edgedeconomic/labour market reasons and the more altruistic reasons that are detailed below:

• Economic/labour market

� Cost effective source of labour

� to increase labour supply

� can train them in the company way

� it’s a away of replacing tradesmen that leave

� I need the help

• Altruistic

� To put something back into the industry

� I was approached by a young person or family member

� Give young kids a chance/job

The economic/labour market reasons were cited most often by all trainers and would appearto be the more important. While the more altruistic reasons are still fairly significant it shouldbe noted that trainers are able to be 'altruistic' if they the financial capacity to take onemployers in the first place.

Table 10 Recent trainers - reasons for employing apprentices by size of firm

Microbusiness(2-5)

Medium(6-19)

large (20+) Total

% % % %

Economic/Labour marketTo increase my labour supply 55 46 60 53Can train them in our own way 20 21 0 19It's a cost effective source of labour 8 20 13 12To bring new ideas to the business 1 3 0 2

Altruistic/otherTo put something back into the industry 23 26 53 27I was approached by a young person or theirrelative

7 3 7 6

Family member 5 0 0 3I was approached by a GTC 1 0 0 1Other 7 12 7 9

Within traditional trainers the larger firms are more likely to employ apprentices as a way ofreplacing tradesmen that leave (32%) and to put something back into the industry (43%).Smaller firms are more likely to report they need the help (37%).


24

There are some significant differences between the reasons given by recent and traditionaltrainers. The most common reasons given by recent trainers for taking on an apprentice werepredominantly related to economic/labour market conditions. Specifically, recent trainerswanted to:

• increase their labour supply (53%)

• to train apprentices in their own way (19%)

• a cost-effective source of labour (12%)

Over a quarter of recent trainers (27%) also mentioned altruistic reasons namely to ”putsomething back into the industry.”

The traditional trainers’ most frequently given reasons for employing apprentices were nearlyequally divided between ”It allows us to train workers in the company way” and “It lets meput something back into the industry.” The need for additional labour, in this questionexpressed as ”It’s a way of replacing tradesmen that leave” was much less significant a reasonin comparison with recent trainers, representing less than 20% of the reasons given bytraditional trainers.

Table 11 Traditional trainers - Reasons for employing apprentices by size of firm

Microbusiness(2-5)

Medium(6-19)

Large(20+)

Total

% % % %

Economic/labour marketIt allows us to train workers in the company way 33 39 39 37It's a way of replacing tradesmen that leave 6 22 32 19I needed the help 37 14 9 20They are a cost effective source of labour 14 16 12 14It's the way we've always done things 4 10 7 7

Altruistic/otherIt lets me put something back into the industry 31 34 43 36Give young kids a chance/job 19 11 9 13I get approached by a potential appr or GTC 2 0 0 1Other 2 4 3 3

Benefits of employing an apprentice

The traditional and recent trainers were asked about the benefits of employing apprentices.Employers saw three different types of benefits that flowed from employing apprentices. Thebenefits were focussed on:

• Economic factors

• Quality of training

• Other, usually altruistic factors

The economic and quality of training issues appear to be of roughly equal importance withover half of trainers citing these advantages (see Table below).


25

Table 12 Main benefit of taking on an apprentice by size of firm

Microbusiness (2-5)

Medium(6-19)

Large(20+)

Total

% % % %

EconomicCost effective source of labour 24 22 22 23Ongoing invest in the business 15 15 25 17Help with workload 18 7 4 11Cheaper to hire an apprentice 7 9 8 8

Quality of trainingI get to train them to suit the way I work 41 55 46 47You get better skilled workers 5 12 10 8It produces employees loyal to the company 10 10 19 12

Altruistic/otherPut something back into the industry 12 13 17 14Give kids a chance 6 8 8 7

Tailoring training to suit the business was the single most important reason. There was agreater number of different economic reasons with nearly a third (31%) reporting thatapprentices were a more cost effective/cheaper source of labour. Being able to put somethingback into the industry (14%), to give kids a chance (7%) and the ability to develop greaterloyalty to the company (12%), were also seen as important advantages.

There were some differences by firm size. Large businesses were more inclined to viewapprentices as an on-going investment in the business and as a way of developing loyalemployees within the business. They were also more likely to be more altruistic in that theysaw apprenticeship employment as putting something back into the industry. Micro businesseson the other hand were more likely to see the more immediate advantages of apprentices. Theysaw the easing of their workload as relatively more important.

Traditional and recent trainers viewed the benefits of apprenticeship employment in a similarway. Traditional trainers seemed to have a slightly longer term view of apprentice employmentand were and were more likely (20%) than recent trainers to (12%) to see apprentices as anongoing investment in the business. Recent trainers were a little more focussed on the moreimmediate benefits with more (16%) citing help with their workload than traditional trainers(8%).


26

Table 13 Main benefit of taking on an apprentice by trainer type

TraditionalTrainer

RecentTrainers

Total

% %

Economic

Cost effective source of labour 20 27 23Help with workload 8 16 11Ongoing invest in the business 20 12 17Cheaper to hire an apprentice 7 10 8

Quality of trainingI get to train them to suit the way I work 46 48 47It produces employees loyal to the company 14 9 12You get better skilled workers 9 7 8

Altruistic/otherPut something back into the industry 13 14 17

Disadvantages of employing an apprentice

When asked to identify the main disadvantages of employing apprentices the reasons givenwere more diverse, with no one response making up a quarter of the total. The next tableprovides details of the responses to this question.

While the reasons given are diverse the responses do seem to be related, with apprentices’ lackof skills and their need for supervision obviously related. Again the requirement forsupervision clearly means additional labour costs are incurred in this supervision, hence thesizeable response to the reason “They cost you money”.

This cluster of reasons relating to the youth and inexperience of apprentices was clearly moresignificant a disadvantage than reasons relating to bureaucratic matters such as the paperworkrequired with recruiting an apprentice or any failure of financial incentives to cover the costs ofapprentices. It also appears that employers in the electro-technology sector have no majorconcerns with the relevance of the off-the-job training in TAFE to their job-related needs. Thelong term duration of an apprenticeship also did not feature as a major disadvantage.

The responses to the issue of apprentice disadvantages were almost identical when analysed byfirm size. The only real difference of note was that smaller businesses, especially microbusinesses (28%) were far more likely to report supervision requirements as an issue than largebusinesses.

These findings suggest that any policy initiatives directed at increasing the recruitment ofapprentices into the industry need to be directed at supporting apprentices and theiremployers in the on-the-job component of their training. Evidence presented elsewhere in thispaper shows that the supervisors of apprentices are unlikely to have had any training in thedelivery of training on-the-job. While this is a problem that is widespread throughout manyindustries - at least 25% of VET practitioners possess no post-school qualifications.


27

Table 14 Main disadvantages of apprentices by firm size

Microbusiness(2-5)

Medium(6-19)

Large(20+)

Total

% % % %Time apprentice spends away from work atTAFE/Tech

16 16 19 17

They take a lot of supervision 28 22 12 23Apprentices do not have skills in early years tobe of much use

26 22 23 24

They cost you money 21 15 23 19They might leave at end of training 5 4 5 4They are young and irresponsible 17 19 15 17Financial incentives do not cover the costs 5 4 3Paperwork associated with taking one on 5 3 1 3Insufficient work 7 7 6 7Long term commitment 2 6 4 4No disadvantage 12 13 22 15

It would seem that one obvious way to address the concern over lack of skills and theassociated problems of supervisory costs and time could in part be through the development ofupdated versions of the former pre-apprenticeship programs that have operated in someapprenticeship areas in the past. This approach would aim to provide some basic skills beforethe apprentice arrived in the workplace.

VET in schools is another area worth investigating. While the number of students undertakingVET in schools generally is increasing, a more targeted increase in the numbers undertakingspecific electrotechnology related subjects would benefit the skill formation in students beforecommencement of an apprenticeship.

Table 15 Main disadvantages of apprentices by trainer type

Traditionaltrainer

Recent trainers Total

% %

Time apprentice spends away from work at TAFE/Tech 17 17 17They take a lot of supervision 18 29 23Apprentices do not have skills in early years to be of much use 22 28 24They cost you money 20 19 19They might leave at end of training 5 3 4They are young and irresponsible 20 14 17Financial incentives do not cover the costs 3 3 3Paperwork associated with taking one on 2 4 3Insufficient work 7 6 7Long term commitment 4 4 4No disadvantage 14 16 15

Changes in apprentice recruitment

Trainers were questioned in relation to their recent history of apprentice recruitment. Thequestion posed was “In the past 3 years have you increased, maintained or decreased thenumber of apprentices you have taken on?” Most commonly traditional trainers hadmaintained recruitment at a constant level, although a significant minority, almost a third, hadactually increased their recruitment over recent years. Only a small proportion of traditionaltrainers, around 10%, had reduced their recruitment of apprentices over the last 3 years. Recenttrainers also appear to have increased their recruitment activity (18%) over recent times, albeit


28

less so than traditional trainers. Recent trainers were also more likely to report they hadreduced there level of recruitment (27%) than traditional trainers.

There were quite marked differences by firm size. The big employers of apprentices namelymedium and large firms, reported much greater increases in recruitment activity with largefirms (42%) reporting twice as much recruitment activity as smaller firms (21%). This findingcoincides with strong employment growth reported in statistical collections over the past threeyears.

Table 16 Recent changes in apprenticeship recruitment by size of firm and trainer type

Increase Decrease Maintain

% % %



Total 32 11 57

Trainers were also asked about their future recruitment of apprentices.

Almost 60% of all trainers expecting to maintain their current levels of apprentice recruitment.Only 10% of all trainers expected their recruitment of apprentices to decline over the coming 3years, while over a quarter (27%) expected an increase. Businesses of different sizes expectedsimilar patterns of recruitment to apply in the future to those noted above.

Interestingly recent trainers (42%) were far more positive in their outlook than their traditionalcounter parts (18%). Traditional trainers (63%) were more likely to think the recruitment ofapprentices would be maintained at there current levels than recent trainers (45%). Given thattraditional trainers account for over 80% of apprentice employment their actions will determinethe extent of future apprentice employment and while the outlook of this group is positive itappears to be less positive than in the previous three years. This would indicate that the levelof recruitment will increase but the increase will be at a lower rate than has recently beenexperienced in the industry.

Table 17 Outlook for apprenticeship recruitment by size of firm and trainer type

Increase Decrease Maintain% % %



Total 27 10 56

Preferred mode of apprentice training

Current employers of apprentices of were asked to identify their preferred mode of apprenticetraining, given the following options:

• Block release

• One day at TAFE, four days at work


29

• Totally on the job

• Other (please specify)

Clearly the traditional pattern of one day a week at TAFE remains the preferred model forapprentice training among employers in this industry. This preference was maintained by allfirms regardless of size. There was a slight preference among smaller firms for totally on-the-job training, however in no size group was this approach favoured by more than 18% of firms.

Table 18 Preferred method of training by size of firm and trainer type

One day atTAFE 4 days atwork

Totally on thejob

Block release Other

% % % %

micro business (2-5) 58 18 22 2medium (6-19) 61 14 23 2large (20+) 56 12 30 3

Traditional trainers 58 14 27 2Recent trainers 60 18 19 3

Total 59 15 24 2

Managing apprentices’ training

Employers of apprentices were asked a series of questions about how they managed thetraining of their apprentices.

Perhaps the most significant finding was that only about 15% of businesses reported that theirtradesmen had received training in how to manage apprentices. Earlier it was noted that themain disadvantage of employing apprentices was seen to be the age and inexperience ofapprentices, and other factors associated with their youth. This lack of training in dealing withyoung adults is likely to be a major contributing factor to perceptions of problems inemploying apprentices.

Larger sized firms with 20 or more employees were slightly more likely to have tradesmentrained in managing apprentices, with 17% of firms in this category reporting trainedtradesmen. The following table shows the percentage of firms that offer training to tradesmenin managing apprentices, by the size of the firm and trainer type.

Table 19 Proportion of businesses that currently offer training to tradesmen in managingapprentices

%

micro business (2-5) 12medium (6-9) 16large (20+) 17

Traditional trainers 16Recent trainers 13

Total 15

Of those firms which currently employ apprentices only about 11% had accredited workplacetrainers. Accredited workplace trainers were most likely to be found in larger firms. Half thefirms surveyed who did not have tradesmen trained in managing apprentices believed that


30

training them to manage apprentices was not necessary. A further 11% said that the tradesmenwere apprentices themselves once. Sixteen percent of respondents said they were unaware thatsuch training was available.

Most firms, almost 90%, reported that they regularly circulated their apprentices amongdifferent tradesmen. As would be expected rotation was less likely to occur in the smallestfirms (those in the 2-5 size range). A smaller proportion of firms, about 80%, reported havingregular meetings or discussions with their tradesmen on the progress of apprentices. A similarproportion again, reported having regular meetings or discussions directly with theirapprentices. Nearly three-quarters of the firms who had regular meetings with theirapprentices had tradesmen trained in managing apprentices. This finding suggests that suchtraining has a positive impact on the management of apprentices.

3.5 Firms not currently employing apprenticesThis final section concentrates on the non-trainers, that is, those employers that do notcurrently employ an apprentice directly or host an apprentice through a group trainingcompany. It investigates why non-trainers do not currently have an apprentice and what mightinfluence them to take on an apprentice in the future. The non-trainers are also segmented intotwo groups, those that have never employed an apprentice before and those that have.

Reasons for not employing apprentices

Almost half (49%) of the firms surveyed were classified as non-trainers. More than half of thisgroup, nearly 58%, had however either directly employed apprentices in the past or had hostedapprentices from a group training company.

Just over 40% of firms not currently employing apprentices had never employed or hostedapprentices. Of this total, 37% were sole traders or micro-businesses.

These firms were asked to provide their reasons for never employing apprentices. Given thesize of these firms the results were predictable and are shown in the following table.

Table 20 Firms who have never employed an apprentice - reasons for notemploying an apprentice by size of firm

sole trader(1)

microbusiness(2-5)

medium(6-19)

large (20+) total

% % % % %They cost too much 17 16 0 0 14

Too much commitment 15 16 9 0 14Too much paper work 6 2 0 0 4I just want to stay small 33 12 0 0 22The nature of the work 30 37 64 57 37I’ve never thought of it 6 8 0 0 6Tradesmen are more costeffective

1 12 0 0 5

Insufficient work 15 18 9 0 15Other 6 6 18 57 10

Almost 60% of the reasons fell into two categories, both of which suggest that trying topersuade these firms to take on apprentices would be challenging. The largest category, “Thenature of the work” was the only reason given by larger firms, although small firms were mostprevalent in this and all other categories. Moreover, those areas more readily addressable bygovernment policy initiatives, such as “too much paper work” or “I’ve never thought of it”only accounted for around 10% of all reasons given.

These firms were also asked whether they had ever considered taking on an apprentice and


31

whether there was any future situation in which they might consider doing this. Nearly halfsaid yes to both these questions, suggesting that there might be some prospect of increasingapprentice numbers among this group. About a quarter said no to both questions. Those whohad never thought of putting on an apprentice were less likely to imagine a future situationunder which they might employ an apprentice. Only about 13% of those who had neverconsidered taking on an apprentice could imagine a future situation under which they mightemploy them.

Of the firms who had employed apprentices in the past but were not currently employing themthe most common reason was a lack of work for them. The second most common reason wasthe nature of the work. Again the main reasons are not easily addressed by policy initiatives.

Table 21 Previous employers of apprentices - reasons for not employing an apprenticenow by size of firm

sole trader(1)

microbusiness(2-5)

medium(6-19)

large (20+) total

% % % % %

I wasn’t happy with the GTC 2 4 4 0 3They cost too much 13 19 13 0 16Too much commitment 15 11 13 33 12Too much paper work 6 0 2I just want to stay small 22 5 9 0 10The nature of the work 19 19 26 67 20Tradesmen are more costeffective

0 1 4 0 1

Due to retire/Too old 15 6 4 0 8Attitudeproblems/unreliable/lack ofcommitment/motivation

7 17 9 33 14

Not enough work for them 28 30 26 0 29Other 2 14 17 33 11

Most of the firms in this category, about 60% had only directly employed apprentices, ratherthan through GTCs. Another 20% or so had both directly employed apprentices and hostedapprentices through a GTC. The 'nature of the work' more than likely relates to the need forhighly skilled labour with most of the firms giving this reason were operating in the mostcommon areas of light & power and voice & data.

Influences to employ an apprentice in future

Those who answered yes to whether there could be future situations under which they mightemploy apprentices were asked what issues might influence their decision. Overwhelminglythe factor that would influence this decision was whether their workload increased, with nearly57% giving this reason. Other factors were of limited significance, as shown in the followingtable.

Access to a GTC did not seem to be an issue, nor again did paperwork associated with takingon an apprentice appear to be a deterrent, nor was the time taken off work by an apprentice aproblem. Greater financial incentives appeared to be attractive to about one in eightrespondents to this question.

The conclusion to be drawn from this analysis of firms not currently employing apprentices isthat only increased demand for their services is likely to increase their employment ofapprentices. The finding that only about 12% would be influenced by finding the right personis surprising, given other research undertaken into apprentice recruitment, (e.g. DETYA (1998)and DEWRSB (1998). These studies into apprenticeships in NSW and Victoria found that only


32

about 1 in 4 applicants for apprenticeship positions was judged suitable by the employer. Thereasons for lack of suitability were mainly that applicants for apprenticeship positions lackedadequate vocational preparation and a positive attitude to further workplace learning.

Table 22 Influences to take on an apprentice by size of firm

sole trader(1)

microbusiness(2-5)

medium(6-19)

large (20+) total

% % % % %If employing an apprentice wereeasier

1 3 0 0 2

If I got more work 61 55 57 40 57If I had access to a GTC 1 4 5 0 3Simpler paper work 7 2 0 20 4Greater financial incentives 13 13 14 0 13If they did their training in theirown time

1 1 0 0 1

If I found the rightperson/Someone withappropriate attitude

13 10 14 20 12

If business expands 9 4 10 20 7If I had the right type of work 6 8 10 40 8Other 4 11 0 0 7

It seems clear that many young applicants are judged not to be suitable for starting anapprenticeship on the basis of inadequate basic skills and their perceived attitude to work.Current trainers, past trainers and non-trainers all expressed variations on these themes assignificant disadvantages in either employing apprentices or as a reason for not employingthem. Policy responses to these concerns need to focus on examining the availability of pre-apprenticeship and related courses. Research should examine whether, when such coursesexist, they represent a pathway into apprenticeships.

There is also clearly a concern that school is generally not providing an adequate preparationfor apprenticeships for some young people. School-based vocational education courses shouldtherefore be examined to determine whether any provide the range of basic vocational skillsbeing sought by employers of apprentices. The industry should seek to influence schoolauthorities to recognise the shortcomings of school curricula in meeting their expectations.

3.6 Employer attitudes toward training and employingapprentices

Employer Outlook

Firms were asked whether they thought they would increase or decrease the number of employees(not just apprentices) within the business over the next 12 months. Based on respondents answersthe overall employment outlook was optimistic. Most of the firms surveyed, around two-thirds,expected their overall employment levels to remain about the same over the coming year. Nearlythree times as many firms, 22% compared to 8%, expected an increase rather than a decrease intheir employment level over the coming year. Larger size firms seemed more optimistic than thesmallest firms in their predictions of employment growth. Similarly non-trainers were also lessoptimistic than both recent and traditional trainers. This is not unexpected given that smaller firmsand non-trainers tend to operate in more volatile economic conditions than other types of businesswithin the industry.


33

All employers were asked to respond to a range of statements to gauge their perceptions relating toapprentices in general and the apprenticeship system. The questions were the same for trainers andnon-trainers alike.

Employer attitude toward apprentices

Overall, responses revealed a strong basic positive attitude towards apprentices and theexisting apprenticeship system across the electrotechnology industry even among non-trainers.Respondents shared a strong belief that an increase in apprentice numbers is needed.Employers voiced little concern about systemic issues, instead the concerns raised related tothe suitability of apprenticeship applicants and to factors that impact on the economic viabilityof an apprenticeship. While traditional trainers and recent trainers were mostly united in theirresponse, differences in opinion were mainly found between trainers and non-trainers.

The industry’s fundamental backing of apprenticeships is demonstrated in the respondent’sstrong united support for the views that training of apprentices is a good way of bringing newskills into the industry and that more apprentices are needed to replace skilled tradesmen whoare leaving the industry (Fig. 4a and 4b). In line with this finding, more than two thirds of eachrespondent group voiced disagreement when presented with the statement that it would bebetter to train existing workers in the electrotechnology industry rather than to train moreapprentices.

Figure 4: Employers in the electrotechnology industry fundamentally support apprenticeships and theapprenticeship system

Economic parameters play a paramount role in the decision-making process whether to employan apprentice or not. Financial incentives offered under the current apprenticeship system areof particular significance for businesses. When presented with the statement that currentfinancial incentives for business are sufficient, 50% of traditional and recent trainers and 42% ofnon-trainers disagreed with this view (Fig. 5a). It should be noted, however, that 41 % of non-trainers were neutral on this issue which may indicate a lack of clarity on this issue among thisgroup.

a) "Training apprentices is a good way of bringing new skills into the industry"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Agree Neutral Disagree

%Traditional TrainerRecent TrainerNon-Trainer

b) "We need more apprentices coming through to replace the skilled tradesmen who are leaving the industry"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


%Traditional TrainersRecent TrainersNon-Trainers


34

Despite the tendency of trainers to consider current financial incentives to be insufficient, 58 %of traditional trainers and 54% of recent trainers disagreed with the view that it is not costeffective to employ apprentices (Fig. 5b). Non-trainers were more divided on this issue withapproximately one third of this group expressing agreement, another third statingdisagreement and the remainder taking a neutral stance.

Figure 5: Trainers tend to consider financial incentives insufficient but still think it is cost-effective to employapprentices

There is a concern among employers in the electrotechnology sector about the suitability ofapprenticeship candidates. Survey respondents were strongly united in their support for theview that it is difficult to find good people to train as apprentices (Fig. 6a). This concern is alsoreflected in the finding that more than 75% of traditional, recent and non-trainers think thatyoung people who become apprentices should do some vocational subjects at school (Fig. 6b).

a) "Current financial incentives for business are sufficient"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60



b) "It is not cost effective to employ apprentices"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70




35

Figure 6: Employers are concerned about the suitability of candidates for apprenticeships and believe that prospectiveapprentices should undertake vocational subjects at school

The concerns voiced by employers about the suitability of candidates clearly open a leveragefor policy makers to stimulate the uptake of apprentices in this sector by addressing theperceived low quality of candidates. One option is to examine whether existing pre-apprenticeship arrangements are optimal to provide a supply of suitably qualifiedapprenticeship candidates. Alternatively, an examination of available school-based vocationaleducation courses may be warranted to determine the level of industry involvement incurriculum content and whether there are pathways from these courses into either pre-apprenticeship or apprenticeship programs.

Factors that indirectly affect the economic viability of an apprenticeship include governmentadministrative support, flexible employment arrangements, employment of apprenticesthrough group training companies, and TAFE/TECH training of apprentices outside ofworking hours. These issues when probed through the survey did not elicited unanimousresponses.

The issue of administrative support from government did not elicit a clear response from anyof the three groups. Traditional trainers and recent trainers were approximately equallydivided in support, non-support and neutral camps on this issue. Non-trainers, however, weremore likely to voice a neutral stance on this view indicating a possible lack of knowledge onthis issue.

None of the respondent groups saw the flexibility of the current apprenticeship system as asignificant negative issue for the apprenticeship system. When asked to respond to thestatement that the new flexible arrangements make it easier to put on an apprentice,respondents voiced little disagreement. Only 16% of traditional trainers, 10% of recent trainersand 10% of non-trainers expressed disagreement with this view (Fig. 7). A small majority oftraditional trainers also believed that the flexibility of the apprenticeship system had improvedover the past years. When presented with the statement that the apprenticeship system is now

a) "It is difficult to find good people to train as apprentices"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80



b) "Young people who become apprentices should do some vocatinal subjects at school"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90




36

more flexible than 5 years ago, 54 % of traditional trainers showed support for this statement.Recent trainers and non-trainers were more divided on this issue with approximately equalfractions of these groups being either supportive or neutral. The latter finding is most likelythe consequence of both groups having little experience over an extended period onapprenticeship issues.

Figure 7: Employers do not consider the flexibility of the current apprenticeship system to be a problem

Employment of apprentices through group training companies (GTC) is a viable alternative forbusiness that may not be able or do not want to directly employ an apprentice. Traditional andrecent trainers were more supportive of direct employment of apprentices while non-trainersshowed no clear preference on this issue (Fig. 8).

There was, however, a marked difference depending upon whether or not the business hadever been a host to apprentices from a GTC. While about 50% of those who had never hostedGTC apprentices believed it was better to employ apprentices directly only about 23% of thosewho acted as GTC hosts believed direct employment to be preferable. It seems that for mostemployers the experience of using a GTC is positive. Policy makers may wish to consider waysin which this could be communicated to both non-trainers and employers of apprentices notusing a GTC.

Among non-trainers, group training companies appear to be particularly unattractive tomedium-sized businesses with 6-19 employees (Fig. 9). Fifty per cent of these firms indicatedin the survey agreement with the view that directly employing apprentices is better thangetting an apprentice through a GTC. Medium-sized firms therefore may be a good target forpolicy measures to increase the utilisation of GTCs.

Figure 8: A majority of trainers prefers direct employment of apprentices

"The new flexible arrangements make it easier to put on an apprentice"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60



"Directly employing apprentices is better than getting an apprentice through a group training company"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60




37

Figure 9: Among non-trainers, group training companies are unattractive to medium-sized businesses

Traditional and recent trainers consider the quality of off-the-job training of apprentices asgood with 55% of respondents from each group voicing agreement with the view that thequality of off-the-job training to apprentices is of a high standard. Support for this view is lesspronounced among the non-trainers although only 15% of this group disagreed. A trainingissue where respondents where highly polarised was whether apprentices should attendTAFE/TECH in their own time instead of work time. Only a small fraction of respondents, 15% and less in each group, was neutral on this issue while the support and disagreement campswere of approximately equal size.

Trainers seem to prefer more mature candidates for apprenticeships while non-trainers seem tohave a slight preference for younger apprentices (Fig. 10). When presented with the statementwhether they would prefer an apprentice to start at 16 years of age 50% of traditional trainersand 53% of recent trainers disagreed with this view while 44% of non-trainers voiced support.

Surprisingly, in the group of non-trainers it is predominantly the larger firms that would prefermore mature apprentices (Fig. 11). Fifty-seven per cent of respondents from businesses with 20or more employees showed a preference for apprentices to start at an older age rather than at16 years. Policy makers may be able to use this leverage and to increase apprentice numbersby marketing older or mature age apprentices to this group of businesses.

Figure 10: Trainers prefer more mature apprentices

"I would prefer an apprentice to start at 16 years rather than at an older age"

0

10

20

30

40

50

60



"Directly employing apprentices is better than getting an apprentice through a group training company"

25%

41%

34%

40%

34%

26%

50%

38%

12%

20%

40% 40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Sole Trader2-56-1920+


38

Figure 11: Among non trainers it is mainly the larger firms that tend to prefer more mature apprentices

The attitudes of employers in the electrotechnology sector indicate that the main reason for notemploying an apprentice or increasing the existing number was not related to dissatisfactionwith the system or a general dissatisfaction with apprentices. Rather they were constrained inrecruiting apprentices by either lack of work or the nature of their work. Not surprisingly,employers think primarily about economic parameters when considering putting onapprentices or increasing their numbers. Non-trainers of apprentices identified an expansionin their work as clearly the major factor that would influence them to take on apprentices.

"I would prefer an apprentice to start at 16 years rather than at an older age"

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Sole Trader

2-5

6-19

20+

Employer engagement with new apprenticeships 39In the electrotechnology industry

4. Skill issues and apprentice trends in theelectrotechnology industry

The purpose of this report is to provide updated information on trends over the years 1995 to 2000 forcontracts of training in the electrical and electronics trade occupations in Australia. The information isessentially an update of information provided in Australian apprentice and trainee statistics: Electrical andelectronic trades 1995 to 1999, NCVER 2000, along with recent employment figures and more detailedinformation for sub-categories for 2000.

The main electrical and electronics trade occupations for which apprentice and trainee data are considered inthis report are:

� Electrical engineering associate professionals (ASCO code 3123)

� Electronics engineering technicians (3124-13)

� Electrical and electronics tradespersons (43)

� Electrical and telecommunications trades assistants (9918).

Comparisons of apprentice and trainee numbers are also made with employment growth in the electrical andelectronics trade occupations.

Factors including widespread technological changes, the requirement of trade industries for more highlyskilled and productive apprentices, increased competition in world trade and the need to improve thetransition from school to work have had a major impact on the employment-based training system inAustralia.

The government has reformed the apprenticeship and trainee system by making it more flexible andresponsive to employer needs and ensuring that quality training is provided. The new training arrangementscovering apprenticeships and traineeships are collectively known as New Apprenticeships which thegovernment began introducing from 1 January 1998.

This report focuses on providing more detailed information on such factors as trends in numbers in training,commencements and completions, in relation specifically to electrical and electronics trade occupationcontracts of training (that is, predominantly apprenticeships) by each of the electrical and electronics tradeoccupation areas. This information is provided in the context of relevant economic and labour marketinformation.

4.1 Overview

Employment

Total employment in the electrotechnology trades workforce was over 193,000 in November 2000representing about 2.1% of all employment in Australia. Electrotechnology trades are the third largestemployer in Australia’s trade workforce accounting for around 16% of total trades employment.

For the electrical and electronics trade occupation categories (sub-major ASCO group 43), the totalnumber in employment experienced an annual rate of decline of –1.7% between November 1998and November 2000 reaching around 173,000. This decline is the most significant downturn inemployment levels in the electrotechnology trades workforce over the past five years (figure 1).The electrical and electronics trade sub-category accounts for about 90% of the totalelectrotechnology trades workforce in 2000. Given a similar decline of 2.7% in the number ofapprentices and trainees in these occupation categories from the end of 1999 to the end of 2000,indications are that the number of apprentices and trainees in training as a proportion of thenumber employed in these occupation categories will essentially remain at its current level ofaround 9%.

Over the past 5 years, growth in the number of apprentices and trainees in the electrical andelectronics trade occupations has been marginally lower than for total employment andconsiderably lower than for apprentices in all trades. Furthermore, employment in electrical and


electronics trades decreased during 2000, with the number of apprentices and trainees in theelectrical and electronics trades also declining but to a lesser extent.

Recent analysis has highlighted some skill shortages exist in Australia’s electrical and electronics trades. Inrecent times, there has been substantial growth in the number of skilled vacancies in the electrical andelectronics trades and apprentice and trainee completions are currently not sufficient to supply all theprojected employment growth in this industry. As a result, increasing retention of apprentices and traineesin the industry has become a critical issue. In addition, greater priority needs to be placed on trainingpathways outside the new apprenticeship system.

Apprentices and trainees

The electrotechnology trades workforce is highly skilled with seven in ten (70.0%) having post schoolqualifications, compared with around 42% for the Australian workforce as a whole. Most of these (56%) havea skilled vocational qualification, which compares very favourably with only 14% of the total workforcehaving a skilled vocational qualification.

The highly skilled electrotechnology trades workforce is predominantly coming from apprentices andtrainees. Almost two thirds 63.5% of apprentices and trainees in training have year 12 or higherqualifications. An additional 33.8% of apprentices and trainees in training also have year 10 or 11 as theirhighest education level, which broadly equates to a skilled vocational qualification. Apprentices and traineesclearly make up an important part of the skill supply to the electrotechnology trades.

Apprenticeships and traineeships in the electrical and electronics trades remain strongly based in atraditional model with the vast majority being longer than 2 years duration (95.8% in 2000) and at AQFCertificate level III or higher (98.0% in 2000).

Time series (1995 to 2000) for apprentices and trainees

Over the period 1995 to 2000, commencements and the numbers in training in the electrical and electronicstrade occupations, excluding electrical and telecommunications trades assistants have remained relativelyflat, with commencements declining slightly (-3.6%) and in training increasing by 5.3%.

Over the period 1995 to 2000:

� The number in training in the electrical and electronics trade occupations grew at an annual rate of 1.0%.This compares with an annual growth rate for all trades of 3.6%.

� The number in training grew for the 25 years or higher age cohort (up 30.1%), however this was from arelatively low base of less than 1900 in training. The 20 to 24 year old age cohort also grew over theperiod (up 3.8%), which equates to an annual growth rate of less than 1%, while the number in trainingaged 15 to 19 years showed a slight decline (down 1.6%). The industry continues to be dominated byyoung persons aged 15 to 24 years of age (85.3% in 2000).

� The number of commencements in the electrical and electronics trade occupations declined at an annualrate of –0.8%, with a sharp fall of –20.8% from 1999 to 2000. The level of commencements are now at 1997levels. About two thirds (63.7%) of commencements in the electrical and electronics trade occupationsare electricians, which declined at an annual rate of –1.9%. This compares with an annual growth rate incommencements for all trades of 2.7%.

� The number of completions in the electrical and electronics trade occupations decreased slightly at anannual rate of -0.4%.

For all the selected electrical and electronics trades together but excluding electrical and telecommunicationstrades assistants, AQF Certificate III and higher level numbers in training rose from 13,980 in 1995 to 15,880in 2000 with an annual growth rate of 2.6%.

The number of apprentices and trainees in full time contracts rose from 14,190 in 1995 to 15,850 in 2000, withan annual growth rate of 2.2%.


Indications are that around 36,000 students1 (excluding electrical and telecommunications trades assistants)were enrolled in a VET course in 1999 relating to electrical and electronics trade occupations. Noting thatthere were just over 16,500 apprentices and trainees at the end of 1999, this suggests that around 19,500students were enrolled in a non-apprentice or non-trainee VET course in 1999 relating to the industry.

Another issue facing employers is the expected stagnation of the teenager population and suggests they willneed to consider looking further than teenagers for new entrants. The relevance and quality of training forexisting workers is also critical for the industry to keep apace of the rapid technological changes occurring inthe industry.

Contract of training data considerations

The contract of training figures for 1995 through 2000 in this report have been derived from apprentice andtrainee information available in the NCVER’s March 2001 Contracts of Training collection. It should be notedthat the 2000 figures may change slightly in subsequent collections owing to the processing of late returns. Italso follows that any growth rates presented may also change in the future.

Due to revised occupational data the numbers for in training at the broad occupational level in this report aredifferent to those published in the December quarter NCVER apprentice and trainee release and representthe most up to date information available.

Figures in this report have been rounded to the nearest 100, whereas growth rates have been based onunrounded figures.

Owing to missing historic information for one jurisdiction, 1995 and 1996 completions data has been derivedfrom the December 1998 Contracts of Training data.

4.2 Demand for skills in the electrotechnology trades

Employment levels

Total employment in the electrotechnology trades workforce was over 193,300 in November 2000 (table 1).This represents 2.1% of all employment in Australia. Electrotechnology trades are the third largest area ofemployment in Australia’s trade workforce accounting for over 16% of total trades employment in Australia.

The single largest electrotechnology trades occupation is electricians, accounting for just under half (44.5%) ofthe total electrotechnology trades workforce. The other significant electrotechnology trades occupations areelectronic communications tradespersons and electronics and office equipment tradespersons, accounting for12.2% and 18.2% of skilled electronics trades employment respectively.

There are an additional 4400 electrical and telecommunications trades assistants.

Electrotechnology trades account for over 6200 employers, with the majority (4521 or 71.4%) as electricians.Notably electronics instrument tradespersons have a high number of employers (130 or 2.1%) in comparisonwith their share, suggesting that there are a significant number of sole traders within this component of theelectrotechnology trades workforce.

1 This number is based on the assumption that the majority of students enrol in a single course


Table 1: Employment in electrotechnology trades occupationsTrades occupation Employment at November 2000 Number of Employers1

Number Share (at 31 December 2000)(’000) (per cent)

3123 Electrical engineering associate professionals 6.9 3.6 153124 Electronic engineering technicians 13.2 6.8 na4311 Electricians 86.1 44.5 45214312 Refrigeration & air conditioning mechanics 19.4 10.0 10944313 Electrical distribution tradespersons 7.5 3.9 914314 Electronics instrument tradespersons 1.5 0.8 1304315 Electronics & office equipment tradesperson 35.1 18.2 1944316 Communications tradespersons 23.6 12.2 193Sub total 193.3 100.0 6238

9918 Electrical & telecommunications trades assistants 4.4 100.0 156Source: NCVER, March 2001 and ABS Labour Force Survey1 Does not include 776 employers at ASCO 43 not further defined. Some employers have apprentices and trainees in different occupations,

as a result the sub-total shows the distinct number of employers (ie removes replicated employers).

The size of employer organisations in the electrical and electronics trades varies quite significantly. Of allapprentices and trainees who were in training during 2000 just over half were employed in firms that had 20or more employees. The medium sized firms (employing between 5 to 19 employees) and the smaller firms(employing between 1 to 4 employees) accounted for about a quarter each of the number of apprentices intraining.

Employment trends

For the electrical and electronics trade occupation categories (sub-major ASCO group 43), the total number inemployment decreased from 179,100 in November 1998 to 173,100 in November 2000. This represents adecline of 1.7% (table 2). Given the growth in the number of apprentices and trainees in these occupationcategories of around 1% between 1998 and 2000, indications are that the number of apprentices and traineesin training as a proportion of the number employed in these occupation categories will decline from itscurrent level of around 9%.

In relation to the electricians occupation category specifically, the total number in employment declined at anannual rate of 3.2% over the 2 years to November 2000. Given the annual growth rate for the number ofapprentices and trainees in training in this occupation category of 0.5% between 1998 and 2000, indicationsare that the number of apprentices and trainees in training as a proportion of the number employed in thisoccupation category may increase from its level of around 13%.

Several occupational categories declined in total employment over the 2 years to November 2000. Of these,electrical distribution tradespersons experienced declines in apprentices and trainees.

In relation to the electrical and telecommunications trades assistants occupation category specifically, thetotal number in employment rose at an annual rate of 35.4% between November 1998 and November 2000.Given the growth in the number of apprentices and trainees in training in this occupation category of around1% between 1998 and 2000, indications are that the number of apprentices and trainees in training as aproportion of the number employed in this occupation category is likely to decrease from its current level ofaround 14%.

It is also of interest to compare trends in employment and numbers of apprentices and trainees in theelectrical and electronics trades over the past 5 years. As shown in figure 1, the growth in the number ofapprentices and trainees has been consistently higher than for total employment in all trades over the period1995 to 2000. Furthermore, both employment in electrical and electronics trades and the number ofapprentices and trainees in the electrical and electronics trades have dropped during 2000, with the drop inthe number of apprentices and trainees in the electrical and electronics trades not as great.


Figure 1: Electrical and electronics trades, all trades, all occupations and apprentices and traineesin training, 1995 to 2000 (indexed)

Source: DEWRSB trending of ABS Labour Force Survey data and NCVER, March 2001.

The electrotechnology trades have experienced a slight decline in total employment over the two years toNovember 2000 (table 2). Electrotechnology trades employment declined by 5,000 or 3.4% over this period,which was significantly weaker than for overall trades employment which increased by 35,200 or 3.0%.

Over the period December 1998 to December 2000 the number of apprentices and trainees in trainingincreased by only around 300 or 1.9%. However all occupations increased at a greater rate (35.9%) over thistime period and therefore the share of electrotechnology apprentices fell from 7.3% in 1998 to 5.5% in 2000.

90

100

110

120

130

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Employed (electro trades) Apprentices (electro trades) Employed (all trades)

Apprentices (all trades) Employed (all occupations)

Em

ploy

er e

ngag

emen

t with

new

app

rent

ices

hips

44In

the

elec

trot

echn

olog

y in

dust

ry

Tab

le 2

: Em

ploy

men

t in

the

elec

tric

al a

nd e

lect

roni

cs tr

ade

occu

pati

ons

and

app

rent

ices

and

trai

nees

in tr

aini

ng, 1

998

to 2

000

Tot

alS

hare

of t

otal

Em

ploy

men

tN

umbe

r of

app

rent

ices

Sha

re o

f tot

alIn

trai

ning

empl

oym

ent

empl

oym

ent

annu

al g

row

th*

and

trai

nees

in tr

aini

ngnu

mbe

r in

trai

ning

annu

al g

row

th*

Nov

’98

Nov

’00

Nov

’98

Nov

’00

1998

to 2

000

Dec

’98

Dec

’00

Dec

’98

Dec

’00

1998

to 2

000

(’000

)(’0

00)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(’000

)(’0

00)

(%)

(%)

(%)

3123

Ele

ctric

al e

ngin

eerin

g as

soci

ate

prof

essi

onal

s7.

56.

90.

10.

1-4

.10.

10.

20.

00.

170

.231

24E

lect

roni

c en

gine

erin

g te

chni

cian

11.7

13.2

0.1

0.1

6.2

(a)

0.0

0.0

0.0

-100

.0

4311

Ele

ctric

ians

91.8

86.1

1.1

0.9

-3.2

11.0

11.1

5.1

3.8

0.5

4312

Ref

riger

atio

n &

airc

ondi

tioni

ng m

echa

nics

17.9

19.4

0.2

0.2

4.1

1.7

1.9

0.8

0.6

4.8

4313

Ele

ctric

al d

istr

ibut

ion

trad

espe

rson

s7.

87.

50.

10.

1-1

.90.

40.

30.

20.

1-1

0.9

4314

Ele

ctro

nic

inst

rum

ent t

rade

sper

sons

1.1

1.5

0.0

0.0

16.8

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.1

-7.3

4315

Ele

ctro

nic

& o

ffice

equ

ipm

ent t

rade

sper

son

31.8

35.1

0.4

0.4

5.1

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

-18.

943

16C

omm

unic

atio

ns tr

ades

pers

ons

28.7

23.6

0.3

0.3

-9.3

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.1

5.9

Oth

er 4

3 E

lect

rical

and

ele

ctro

nics

trad

espe

rson

sna

na-

--

1.6

1.8

0.8

0.6

4.3

Sub

tota

l (A

SC

O 4

3 E

lect

rical

and

ele

ctro

nics

trad

espe

rson

s)17

9.1

173.

12.

11.

9-1

.715

.916

.07.

35.

40.

5

Tot

al e

lect

rote

chno

logy

198.

319

3.3

2.3

2.1

-1.3

15.9

16.2

7.3

5.5

0.9

9918

Ele

ctric

al &

tele

com

mun

icat

ions

trad

es a

ssis

tant

s2.

44.

40.

00.

035

.40.

50.

60.

30.

22.

8

All

trad

es1,

155.

81,

191.

013

.413

.11.

512

4.8

130.

157

.444

.02.

1A

ll oc

cupa

tions

8,65

1.0

9,06

7.5

100.

010

0.0

2.4

217.

529

5.6

100.

010

0.0

16.6

Sou

rce:

NC

VE

R, M

arch

200

1 an

d A

BS

Lab

our

For

ce S

urve

y.*

Ann

ual r

ates

of g

row

th a

re c

ompo

und

grow

th r

ates

.(a

) R

epre

sent

s fig

ures

bet

wee

n 1

and

9 in

clus

ive


4.3 Skills of the existing electrotechnology trades workforce

Skills of the existing electrotechnology trades workforce

Seven in ten (70.0%) of the skilled trades workforce in the electrotechnology trades have post schoolqualifications (table 3), significantly higher than for the whole Australian workforce in which around 42%have a post school qualification.

The information shown in table 3 details the highest qualification attained. Some of those with degrees,diplomas and associate diplomas may also have vocational qualifications.

For the electrotechnology trades as a whole:

� About 9% of employed persons have a diploma or associate diploma (or equivalent) as their highestqualification, about the same rate as for the total workforce (around 8%).

� Around 56% have a skilled vocational qualification, significantly higher than for the total workforce(around 14%).

� About 3% of those in the electrotechnology trades workforce hold a degree level or higherqualification compared to over 15% having such qualifications in the total workforce.

� About one in four (24.7%) of those in the electrotechnology trades workforce do not have anyqualifications, significantly fewer than for the total workforce (51.3%).

In relative terms, this means that the proportion of the workforce in the electrotechnology trades whopossess relevant qualifications (ie diploma and other vocational qualifications) is high compared to thelevels of qualifications attained in the workforce as a whole.

The following two tables (tables 4 and 5) detail the highest education level of apprentices and traineesfrom 1995 to 2000. These two tables show that the skill formation of the electrotechnology trades iscoming from apprentices and trainees more than anywhere else. Almost two thirds (63.4%) of apprenticesand trainees in training have year 12 or higher qualifications. An additional 33.8% of apprentices andtrainees in training also have year 10 or 11 as their highest education level, which broadly equates to askilled vocational qualification.

Em

ploy

er e

ngag

emen

t with

new

app

rent

ices

hips

46In

the

elec

trot

echn

olog

y in

dust

ry

Tab

le 3

: Th

e e

du

ca

tion

att

ain

me

nt

of

pe

rso

ns

em

plo

yed

in t

he

ele

ctr

ote

ch

no

log

y tr

ad

es,

an

d t

he

to

tal w

ork

forc

e, 1

996

Occ

upat

iona

l cat

egor

ies

Pro

port

ion

of w

orkf

orce

wit

h (%

)D

egre

e or

high

erD

iplo

ma

Ass

ocia

teD

iplo

ma

Ski

lled

voca

tion

alqu

alif

icat

ion

Bas

icvo

cati

onal

qual

ific

atio

n

Sub

Tot

alw

ith

qual

ific

atio

n

No

qual

ific

atio

nN

ot s

tate

d/un

know

nT

otal

3123

Ele

ctri

cal e

ngin

eeri

ng a

ssoc

iate

pro

fess

iona

ls3.

12.

422

.552

.04.

084

.012

.33.

710

0.0

3124

Ele

ctro

nic

engi

neer

ing

tech

nici

ans

4.8

3.2

20.6

41.8

6.7

77.1

17.3

5.6

100.

043

11 E

lect

rici

ans

0.8

0.6

3.2

74.1

1.0

79.7

16.4

3.9

100.

043

12 R

efri

gera

tion

& a

irco

ndit

ioni

ng m

echa

nics

1.0

0.8

1.7

67.3

1.0

71.8

23.8

4.4

100.

043

13 E

lect

rica

l dis

trib

utio

n tr

ades

pers

ons

0.3

0.2

0.9

58.2

4.7

64.3

25.7

10.0

100.

043

14 E

lect

roni

c in

stru

men

t tra

desp

erso

ns2.

92.

211

.966

.43.

286

.611

.91.

510

0.0

4315

Ele

ctri

cal &

off

ice

equi

pmen

t tra

desp

erso

ns9.

03.

29.

430

.54.

756

.835

.57.

710

0.0

4316

Com

mun

icat

ions

trad

espe

rson

s1.

91.

24.

634

.53.

145

.347

.57.

210

0.0

4310

Oth

er e

lect

rote

chno

logy

trad

es0.

31.

02.

143

.01.

848

.245

.16.

710

0.0

Sub

tota

l ski

lled

ele

ctro

tech

nolo

gy tr

ades

2.6

1.5

7.3

56.4

2.8

70.6

24.1

5.3

100.

0

9918

Ele

ctri

cal &

tele

com

mun

icat

ion

trad

es a

ssis

tant

s1.

10.

70.

918

.32.

423

.470

.46.

210

0.0

Tot

al e

lect

rote

chno

logy

2.6

1.4

7.2

55.9

2.9

70.0

24.7

5.3

100.

0T

otal

Aus

tral

ian

wor

kfor

ce15

.54.

53.

514

.23.

841

.551

.37.

210

0.0

Sour

ces:

NC

VE

R (1

998)

The

Out

look

for

Tra

inin

g in

Aus

tral

ia’s

Ind

ustr

ies,

Tab

le A

2 an

d A

BS

1996

Cen

sus

of P

opul

atio

n an

d H

ousi

ng.


Table 4: Electrical and electronics trade commencements by highest education level, 1995 to 2000

Number Annual Growthgrowth rate* 1999 - 2000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1995 – 2000 (%) (%)3123 Electrical engineering associate professionalsDegree or postgraduatediploma

0 0 0 0 0 (a) - -

Associate or undergraduatediploma

(a) (a) 0 0 0 20 72.4 -

Trade/Technician certificate (a) 0 (a) (a) (a) (a) 0.3 -66.1Other certificate 0 0 (a) 0 (a) 10 - 204.5Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

0 0 0 0 0 0 - -

Year 12 10 (a) 20 20 30 50 37.7 54.7Year 10 or 11 0 0 (a) (a) (a) (a) - 405.2Year 9 or lower 0 0 0 0 0 (a) - -Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 (a) - -Sub total 10 (a) 30 20 40 90 49.7 125.2

3124-13 Electronics engineering technicianDegree or postgraduatediploma

0 0 0 0 0 0 - -


0 (a) 0 0 0 0 - -

Trade/Technician certificate 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Other certificate 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

0 0 0 0 0 0 - -

Year 12 (a) 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -Year 10 or 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Year 9 or lower 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Sub total (a) (a) 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -

4311 ElectriciansDegree or postgraduatediploma

(a) (a) (a) (a) 10 20 42.7 136.6


(a) (a) (a) 10 20 10 23.3 -40.7

Trade/Technician certificate 50 40 30 80 110 60 5.8 -44.3Other certificate 50 80 110 180 190 190 31.0 1.2Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

20 (a) (a) 70 50 30 14.1 -36.7

Year 12 1800 1710 1840 1920 2180 1570 -2.6 -27.9Year 10 or 11 1330 1220 1260 1330 1470 1120 -3.4 -24.0Year 9 or lower 40 50 60 50 80 70 14.0 -13.0Unknown 130 50 40 30 30 20 -31.0 -38.0Sub total 3410 3160 3360 3670 4140 3100 -1.9 -25.2

4312 Refrigeration and airconditioning mechanicsDegree or postgraduatediploma

0 0 0 (a) (a) (a) - 0.4


(a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 0.0 -74.9

Trade/Technician certificate 10 (a) (a) 20 30 10 -1.1 -49.1Other certificate 10 10 (a) 20 20 10 7.3 -32.2Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

(a) (a) (a) 10 40 20 32.8 -55.4

Year 12 250 230 250 290 290 240 -0.3 -16.4Year 10 or 11 200 190 270 240 300 270 5.8 -12.3Year 9 or lower (a) (a) 10 20 10 10 12.6 11.2Unknown 20 (a) 10 (a) (a) (a) -20.7 4.7Sub total 500 450 570 600 700 580 2.7 -18.0* Annual rates of growth are compound growth rates (a) Represents figures between 1 and 9 inclusiveSource: NCVER, March 2001


Table 4 continued: Electrical and electronics trade commencements by highest education level, 1995 to 2000


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1995 – 2000 (%) (%)4313 Electrical distribution tradespersonsDegree or postgraduatediploma

0 0 0 (a) 0 0 - -


0 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) - -48.6

Trade/Technician certificate (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) -16.7 -59.8Other certificate (a) (a) (a) 10 10 (a) -24.2 -91.6Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

(a) (a) (a) 30 50 (a) 15.1 -95.7

Year 12 100 70 70 50 50 60 -10.3 6.4Year 10 or 11 20 20 30 20 10 20 -6.6 55.5Year 9 or lower (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) -19.6 -49.7Unknown (a) 0 (a) 0 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 140 110 120 120 130 80 -10.5 -38.6

4314 Electronics instrument tradespersonsDegree or postgraduatediploma

0 0 0 0 0 (a) - -


0 0 0 0 0 (a) - -

Trade/Technician certificate 0 (a) (a) (a) 20 (a) - -85.6Other certificate 0 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) - 45.7Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

0 (a) 0 (a) (a) (a) - -49.5

Year 12 40 50 60 60 60 60 5.3 -9.5Year 10 or 11 50 20 10 20 30 20 -13.7 -36.8Year 9 or lower 0 0 0 0 0 (a) - -Unknown 0 0 (a) (a) 0 0 - -Sub total 90 70 90 100 120 90 0.7 -22.6

4315 Electronics and office equipment tradespersonDegree or postgraduatediploma

0 0 0 0 (a) (a) - 1.5


(a) 0 0 (a) (a) (a) 25.9 216.9

Trade/Technician certificate (a) (a) 0 (a) (a) (a) -4.6 216.7Other certificate (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) -12.2 4.1Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

(a) 0 0 0 (a) 10 21.0 159.8

Year 12 140 140 80 80 110 80 -10.7 -25.4Year 10 or 11 110 80 60 50 50 50 -16.0 -3.7Year 9 or lower (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 1.0 5.1Unknown 20 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) -24.2 400.4Sub total 290 240 150 150 170 150 -11.6 -8.0

4316 Communications tradespersonsDegree or postgraduatediploma

(a) 0 0 (a) 0 0 -100.0 -


(a) (a) 0 (a) (a) (a) -12.9 -49.9

Trade/Technician certificate (a) (a) 0 (a) (a) (a) -10.1 -70.7Other certificate 0 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) - 56.7Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

0 0 0 (a) (a) (a) - 1.4

Year 12 30 60 80 60 120 90 21.2 -24.0Year 10 or 11 20 20 40 40 90 40 17.8 -55.6Year 9 or lower 0 0 (a) (a) (a) (a) - -53.4Unknown (a) (a) 0 (a) (a) (a) 0.1 0.6Sub total 60 90 120 120 230 150 20.7 -36.2* Annual rates of growth are compound growth rates (a) Represents figures between 1 and 9 inclusiveSource: NCVER, March 2001


Table 4 continued: Electrical and electronics trade commencements by highest education level, 1995 to 2000


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1995 – 2000 (%) (%)Other 43 Electrical & electronics tradespersonsnot known at 4-digit levelDegree or postgraduatediploma

(a) (a) (a) 0 (a) (a) -12.3 3.9


(a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) -12.8 101.7

Trade/Technician certificate 20 10 10 20 30 20 -2.5 -26.0Other certificate (a) 20 20 40 50 40 37.8 -15.8Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

(a) (a) (a) 40 40 70 70.1 69.7

Year 12 270 280 210 230 310 310 2.7 -0.9Year 10 or 11 190 200 150 170 170 180 -1.4 6.7Year 9 or lower (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) -14.5 -41.1Unknown 60 60 30 20 10 (a) -38.4 -57.1Sub total 560 590 440 520 610 630 2.2 2.3

ALL ABOVE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TRADESPERSONSDegree or postgraduatediploma

(a) (a) (a) (a) 20 30 36.2 118.6


10 20 (a) 20 30 40 22.6 13.9

Trade/Technician certificate 90 70 60 130 190 100 1.8 -45.8Other certificate 80 120 160 260 290 280 28.7 -3.4Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

30 20 20 150 190 140 34.4 -26.8

Year 12 2640 2560 2620 2710 3150 2450 -1.4 -22.1Year 10 or 11 1910 1740 1820 1870 2120 1690 -2.5 -20.4Year 9 or lower 60 70 80 80 120 100 10.8 -13.4Unknown 240 120 90 70 50 40 -29.6 -22.8TOTAL 5070 4710 4870 5300 6150 4870 -0.8 -20.8

9918 Electrical and telecommunications trades assistantsDegree or postgraduatediploma

(a) 0 (a) 0 (a) (a) 0.2 -59.6


0 (a) (a) (a) 10 (a) - -76.7

Trade/Technician certificate (a) (a) (a) 20 40 30 97.1 -25.6Other certificate (a) (a) 10 20 60 30 49.2 -48.1Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

0 (a) (a) 20 30 (a) - -79.1

Year 12 20 160 220 270 330 250 71.2 -24.2Year 10 or 11 20 120 150 230 310 220 61.4 -28.7Year 9 or lower (a) 10 10 20 30 20 36.3 -26.4Unknown 30 30 (a) 30 (a) (a) -24.5 102.5Sub total 80 330 410 610 820 570 47.4 -30.2* Annual rates of growth are compound growth rates (a) Represents figures between 1 and 9 inclusiveSource: NCVER, March 2001


Table 5: Electrical and electronics trade number in training by highest education level, 31 December 1995 to 2000


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1995 – 2000 (%) (%)3123 Electrical engineering associate professionalsDegree or postgraduatediploma

0 0 0 0 0 (a) - -


(a) (a) (a) (a) 0 20 71.9 -

Trade/Technician certificate (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 47.6 16.7Other certificate 0 0 (a) (a) (a) 20 - 240.0Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

0 0 0 0 0 0 - -

Year 12 20 10 30 50 70 120 43.3 64.3Year 10 or 11 (a) 0 (a) (a) (a) 10 38.0 100.0Year 9 or lower 0 0 0 0 0 (a) - -Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 (a) - -Sub total 20 20 40 60 90 170 49.4 98.8

3124-13 Electronics engineering technicianDegree or postgraduatediploma

0 0 0 0 0 0 - -


0 (a) 0 0 0 0 - -

Trade/Technician certificate 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Other certificate 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

0 0 0 0 0 0 - -

Year 12 (a) (a) (a) (a) 0 0 -100.0 -Year 10 or 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Year 9 or lower 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Sub total (a) (a) (a) (a) 0 0 -100.0 -

4311 ElectriciansDegree or postgraduatediploma

(a) (a) (a) (a) 10 30 43.1 150.0


10 10 20 20 40 50 33.7 23.7


30 30 30 140 150 150 41.2 -2.7

Year 12 6040 6130 6070 5970 6280 5970 -0.2 -4.9Year 10 or 11 4160 4140 4130 4030 4150 3900 -1.3 -6.0Year 9 or lower 100 100 110 130 180 180 12.1 1.7Unknown 300 280 240 200 140 100 -19.0 -24.8Sub total 10820 10950 10950 11000 11610 11110 0.5 -4.3

4312 Refrigeration and airconditioning mechanicsDegree or postgraduatediploma

0 0 0 (a) (a) (a) - 66.7


(a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 20.1 0.0


(a) 10 10 30 60 70 52.5 3.1

Year 12 710 760 800 840 850 840 3.5 -1.6Year 10 or 11 560 590 650 690 770 810 7.5 4.5Year 9 or lower 20 20 30 30 40 40 11.3 7.9Unknown 50 40 40 40 30 30 -12.6 4.0Sub total 1390 1470 1580 1710 1850 1880 6.2 1.4* Annual rates of growth are compound growth rates (a) Represents figures between 1 and 9 inclusiveSource: NCVER, March 2001


Table 5 continued: Electrical and electronics trade number in training by highest education level, 31 December 1995 to 2000


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1995 – 2000 (%) (%)4313 Electrical distribution tradespersonsDegree or postgraduatediploma

0 0 0 (a) (a) (a) - 0.0


0 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) - -25.0

Trade/Technician certificate 20 10 10 10 10 (a) -10.9 -30.8Other certificate (a) 10 20 30 40 30 26.6 -25.7Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

(a) 10 20 40 70 50 77.6 -25.4

Year 12 330 320 290 240 200 170 -11.9 -11.7Year 10 or 11 160 120 80 60 50 50 -21.7 0.0Year 9 or lower 10 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) -16.1 0.0Unknown 30 20 10 (a) (a) (a) -47.9 0.0Sub total 560 510 440 400 380 320 -10.5 -14.7

4314 Electronics instrument tradespersonsDegree or postgraduatediploma

0 0 0 0 0 0 - -


0 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) - 100.0

Trade/Technician certificate 0 (a) (a) (a) 20 20 - 11.1Other certificate 0 (a) (a) 10 10 20 - 14.3Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

(a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 14.9 -50.0

Year 12 70 130 180 210 200 200 21.7 -2.5Year 10 or 11 130 130 110 120 80 60 -13.4 -20.5Year 9 or lower (a) (a) (a) 0 0 (a) -24.2 -Unknown (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 0.0 -33.3Sub total 210 280 310 350 320 300 7.7 -5.7

4315 Electronics and office equipment tradespersonDegree or postgraduatediploma

0 0 0 0 (a) (a) - 0.0


(a) (a) 0 (a) (a) (a) 24.6 200.0

Trade/Technician certificate (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) -15.0 33.3Other certificate (a) 10 10 20 20 20 14.9 6.7Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

(a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 10 34.1 225.0

Year 12 490 470 370 260 220 180 -18.7 -20.4Year 10 or 11 390 250 190 140 90 70 -29.8 -21.2Year 9 or lower 10 10 (a) (a) (a) (a) -21.4 -50.0Unknown 30 30 20 10 (a) (a) -34.8 33.3Sub total 950 790 610 440 340 290 -21.3 -15.3

4316 Communications tradespersonsDegree or postgraduatediploma

(a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 0.0 0.0


(a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 8.4 0.0

Trade/Technician certificate (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) -12.9 -80.0Other certificate 0 (a) (a) (a) 10 20 - 70.0Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

0 0 0 10 (a) (a) - 0.0

Year 12 80 120 170 180 230 210 22.9 -5.3Year 10 or 11 40 50 70 100 120 100 19.9 -16.8Year 9 or lower 0 0 (a) (a) 10 10 - 0.0Unknown (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 14.9 0.0Sub total 120 180 260 310 380 350 23.6 -7.6* Annual rates of growth are compound growth rates (a) Represents figures between 1 and 9 inclusiveSource: NCVER, March 2001


Table 5 continued: Electrical and electronics trade number in training by highest education level, 31 December 1995 to 2000


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1995 – 2000 (%) (%)Other 43 Electrical & electronics tradespersonsnot known at 4-digit levelDegree or postgraduatediploma

(a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) -19.7 100.0


20 20 10 (a) (a) (a) -19.7 0.0

Trade/Technician certificate 70 60 50 50 60 60 -3.2 8.6Other certificate 20 30 40 70 100 130 53.5 23.1Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

20 10 10 90 100 160 58.5 55.3

Year 12 650 750 750 760 820 880 6.4 6.9Year 10 or 11 410 490 500 520 490 480 3.1 -2.8Year 9 or lower 10 20 10 20 20 20 2.9 -28.6Unknown 120 120 130 120 90 50 -14.9 -39.3Sub total 1320 1490 1510 1640 1700 1780 6.3 5.3

ALL ABOVE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TRADESPERSONSDegree or postgraduatediploma

10 10 10 20 20 40 29.7 120.0


30 40 40 40 60 80 21.0 45.6


60 70 80 310 400 450 50.8 11.0

Year 12 8380 8700 8660 8500 8870 8570 0.4 -3.4Year 10 or 11 5860 5770 5740 5660 5750 5470 -1.4 -4.8Year 9 or lower 160 160 170 200 260 260 9.3 -0.4Unknown 530 500 460 390 260 200 -18.1 -25.0TOTAL 15380 15670 15710 15920 16660 16200 1.0 -2.7

9918 Electrical and telecommunications trades assistantsDegree or postgraduatediploma

(a) 0 (a) 0 (a) (a) 14.9 -60.0


0 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) - -50.0

Trade/Technician certificate (a) (a) (a) 20 30 30 93.3 8.0Other certificate (a) (a) 10 20 50 30 46.5 -41.3Unspecified post-secondaryeducation

0 (a) (a) 20 30 20 - -37.9

Year 12 20 140 200 240 260 260 72.3 -1.9Year 10 or 11 20 100 110 200 240 210 68.0 -10.8Year 9 or lower (a) 10 (a) 20 20 20 33.2 -8.7Unknown 30 20 (a) 20 (a) (a) -30.6 66.7Sub total 80 290 350 550 640 580 50.3 -10.3* Annual rates of growth are compound growth rates (a) Represents figures between 1 and 9 inclusiveSource: NCVER, March 2001


Commencements, number in training and completions, 1995 to 2000

This section focuses on trends in commencements, number in training and completions from 1995 to 2000.

For commencements (table 6):

� For all the selected electrical and electronics trades together but excluding electrical andtelecommunications trades assistants, commencements grew from 5,070 in 1995 to 6,150 in 1999 and thendropped to 4,870 in 2000.

� The annual growth rate for commencements over the period 1995 to 2000 was –0.8%, with a large drop of–20.8% from 1999 to 2000. This is broadly in line with the trend in commencements in all trades whichhave grown at an annual growth rate of 2.7% over the period 1995 to 2000 but declined by 11.1% from1999 to 2000.

� Growth in commencements varied across the selected 4-digit level trades over the period 1995 to 2000.The biggest growth in terms of numbers occurred for communications tradespersons while electricians,electrical distribution tradespersons, and electronics and office equipment tradespersons declined.

� Commencements for electrical and telecommunications trades assistants grew very strongly from 80 in1995 to 820 in 1999 then declined to 570 in 2000.

For the number in training (table 7):

� For all the selected electrical and electronics trades together but excluding electrical andtelecommunications trades assistants, the number in training grew from 15,380 in 1995 to 16,200 in 2000.

� The annual growth rate for the number in training over the period 1995 to 2000 was 1.0%, the growth ratefor 1999 to 2000 being negative at –2.7%. This is broadly in line with the trend for the number of tradeapprentices and trainees in training which increased at an annual growth rate of 3.6% over the period1995 to 2000 but remained essentially the same since 1999.

� The number in training grew for all selected 4-digit level occupations over the period 1995 to 2000 exceptelectrical distribution tradespersons and electronics and office equipment tradespersons.

� The number in training for electrical and telecommunications trades assistants grew very strongly, from80 in 1995 to 640 in 1999, followed by a slight decline to 580 in 2000.

For completions2(table 8):

� For all the selected electrical and electronics trades together but excluding electrical andtelecommunications trades assistants, completions declined marginally from 3,650 in 1995 to 3,580 in2000.

� The annual growth rate for completions over the period 1995 to 2000 was –0.4%, the growth rate for 1999to 2000 is lower at –3.5%. This compares with an annual growth rate in completions for all trades of 3.2%over the period 1995 to 2000.

� Growth for completions varied across the selected 4-digit level occupations over the period 1995 to 2000.The biggest growth occurred for communications tradespersons while several occupations includingelectricians declined.

� Completions for electrical and telecommunications trades assistants grew strongly, from 10 in1995 to 320 in 2000.

2 It should be noted that completions data should be treated with caution due to the possibility of under-reporting.

Em

ploy

men

t eng

agem

ent w

ith n

ew a

ppre

ntic

eshi

ps54

in th

e el

ectr

otec

hnol

ogy

indu

stry

Tab

le 6

: Ele

ctric

al a

nd e

lect

roni

cs tr

ades

com

men

cem

ents

, 199

5 to

200

0

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Ann

ual

Gro

wth

grow

th r

ate*

grow

th r

ate*

1999

- 2

000

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

1995

-200

019

95 –

199

9(%

)31

23E

lect

rical

eng

inee

ring

asso

ciat

e pr

ofes

sion

als

10(a

)30

2040

9049

.635

.112

5.0

3124

-13

Ele

ctro

nics

Eng

inee

ring

Tec

hnic

ian

(a)

(a)

00

00

-100

.0-1

00.0

-43

11E

lect

ricia

ns34

1031

6033

6036

7041

4031

00-1

.95.

0-2

5.2

4312

Ref

riger

atio

n &

airc

ondi

tioni

ng m

echa

nics

500

450

570

600

700

580

2.7

8.7

-18.

043

13E

lect

rical

dis

trib

utio

n tr

ades

pers

ons

140

110

120

120

130

80-1

0.4

-1.6

-38.

343

14E

lect

roni

cs in

stru

men

t tra

desp

erso

ns90

7090

100

120

900.

77.

5-2

2.7

4315

Ele

ctro

nics

& o

ffice

equ

ipm

ent t

rade

sper

sons

290

240

150

150

170

160

-11.

5-1

2.5

-7.7

4316

Com

mun

icat

ions

trad

espe

rson

s60

9012

012

023

015

020

.741

.6-3

6.2

Oth

er 4

3 E

lect

rical

& e

lect

roni

cs tr

ades

pers

ons

no

t kno

wn

at 4

-dig

it le

vel

560

590

440

520

610

630

2.2

2.1

2.3

Su

b t

ota

l50

7047

1048

7053

0061

5048

70-0

.85.

0-2

0.8

9918

Ele

ctric

al &

tele

com

mun

icat

ions

trad

es a

ssis

tant

s80

330

410

610

820

570

47.4

77.7

-30.

2

Tot

al A

LL T

rade

s41

690

4089

040

520

4817

053

710

4773

02.

76.

5-1

1.1

Sou

rce:

NC

VE

R, M

arch

200

1

Tab

le 7

: Ele

ctric

al a

nd e

lect

roni

cs tr

ades

num

ber

in tr

aini

ng, 3

1 D

ecem

ber

1995

to 2

000

Num

ber

Ann

ual

Ann

ual

Gro

wth

grow

th r

ate*

grow

th r

ate*

1999

- 2

000

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

1995

-200

019

95 –

199

9(%

)31

23E

lect

rical

eng

inee

ring

asso

ciat

e pr

ofes

sion

als

2020

4060

9017

049

.439

.198

.831

24-1

3E

lect

roni

cs E

ngin

eerin

g T

echn

icia

n(a

)(a

)(a

)(a

)0

0-1

00.0

-100

.0-

4311

Ele

ctric

ians

1082

010

950

1095

011

000

1161

011

110

0.5

1.8

-4.3

4312

Ref

riger

atio

n &

airc

ondi

tioni

ng m

echa

nics

1390

1470

1580

1710

1850

1880

6.2

7.5

1.4

4313

Ele

ctric

al d

istr

ibut

ion

trad

espe

rson

s56

051

044

040

038

032

0-1

0.5

-9.4

-14.

743

14E

lect

roni

cs in

stru

men

t tra

desp

erso

ns21

028

031

035

032

030

07.

711

.3-5

.743

15E

lect

roni

cs &

offi

ce e

quip

men

t tra

desp

erso

n95

079

061

044

034

029

0-2

1.3

-22.

7-1

5.3

4316

Com

mun

icat

ions

trad

espe

rson

s12

018

026

031

038

035

023

.632

.9-7

.6O

ther

43

Ele

ctric

al &

ele

ctro

nics

trad

espe

rson

s

not k

now

n at

4-d

igit

leve

l13

2014

9015

1016

4017

0017

806.

36.

65.

3S

ub

to

tal

1538

015

670

1571

015

920

1666

016

200

1.0

2.0

-2.7

9918

Ele

ctric

al &

tele

com

mun

icat

ions

trad

es a

ssis

tant

s80

290

350

550

640

580

50.3

71.0

-10.

3

Tot

al A

LL T

rade

s10

9140

1207

9012

3770

1247

7012

9690

1301

203.

64.

40.

3S

ourc

e: N

CV

ER

, Mar

ch 2

001

* A

nnua

l rat

es o

f gro

wth

are

com

poun

d gr

owth

rat

es(a

) R

epre

sent

s fig

ures

bet

wee

n 1

and

9 in

clus

ive

Em

ploy

men

t eng

agem

ent w

ith n

ew a

ppre

ntic

eshi

ps55

in th

e el

ectr

otec

hnol

ogy

indu

stry

Tab

le 8

: Ele

ctric

al a

nd e

lect

roni

cs tr

ade

com

plet

ions

199

5 to

200

0N

umbe

rA

nnua

lA

nnua

lG

row

thgr

owth

rat

e*gr

owth

rat

e*19

99 -

200

019

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0019

95-2

000

1995

– 1

999

(%)

3123

Ele

ctric

al e

ngin

eerin

g as

soci

ate

prof

essi

onal

s(a

)(a

)(a

)(a

)10

(a)

-16.

721

.8-8

1.8

3124

-13

Ele

ctro

nics

Eng

inee

ring

Tec

hnic

ian

00

00

00

--

-43

11E

lect

ricia

ns26

9023

3025

5025

6024

4024

40-1

.9-2

.40.

043

12R

efrig

erat

ion

& a

ircon

ditio

ning

mec

hani

cs25

026

032

029

036

035

07.

09.

2-1

.443

13E

lect

rical

dis

trib

utio

n tr

ades

pers

ons

170

150

140

120

120

100

-8.8

-8.6

-9.6

4314

Ele

ctro

nics

inst

rum

ent t

rade

sper

sons

4030

5011

012

090

17.2

28.9

-19.

843

15E

lect

roni

cs &

offi

ce e

quip

men

t tra

desp

erso

n32

024

021

019

016

012

0-1

8.0

-16.

0-2

5.5

4316

Com

mun

icat

ions

trad

espe

rson

s20

2020

6011

070

25.8

48.2

-34.

7O

ther

43

Ele

ctric

al &

ele

ctro

nics

trad

espe

rson

s

not k

now

n at

4-d

igit

leve

l16

023

027

029

041

041

020

.626

.4-0

.2S

ub

to

tal

3650

3270

3570

3610

3710

3580

-0.4

0.4

-3.5

9918

Ele

ctric

al &

tele

com

mun

icat

ions

trad

es a

ssis

tant

s10

5022

022

034

032

090

.312

5.8

-4.1

Tot

al A

LL T

rade

s22

700

2405

026

410

2788

027

100

2661

03.

24.

5-1

.8S

ourc

e: N

CV

ER

, Mar

ch 2

001

* A

nnua

l rat

es o

f gro

wth

are

com

poun

d gr

owth

rat

es(a

) R

epre

sent

s fig

ures

bet

wee

n 1

and

9 in

clus

ive

Employment engagement with new apprenticeships 56in the electrotechnology industry

4.4 Trends in specific occupations, 1995 to 2000This sections comments on trends specifically in relation to the 4-digit occupations under review.

The occupations which showed strong growth in terms of numbers in training over the period 1995 to 2000were:

� Electrical and telecommunications trades assistants (annual growth of 50.3%),

� Electrical engineering associate professionals (49.4%)

� Communications tradespersons (23.6%),

� Electronics instrument tradespersons (7.7%), and

� Refrigeration and airconditioning mechanics (6.2%).

Two occupations showed declines in numbers in training over the period 1995 to 2000:

� Electronics and office equipment tradespersons (-21.3%), and

� Electrical distribution tradespersons (-10.5%).

Age

This section focuses on trends in commencements and numbers in training from 1995 to 2000 by age.


� In 2000, commencements by 15 to 19 year and 20 to 24 year olds in all the selected electrical andelectronics trades (excluding electrical and telecommunications trades assistants) dropped below 1995levels. Commencements by apprentices and trainees of age 25 and older also dropped but stayed above1995 levels.

� Annual growth rates were positive for older age cohorts with the 25 or more years age cohorts having arate of growth of 3.7% over the period 1995 to 2000. The growth rate for 15 to 19 year olds was–1.5% and that for 20 to 24 year olds was –0.7%.

� In terms of rates of growth, several 4-digit occupations experienced their strongest growth (or smallestdecline) in the 25 or more year old age group when compared with the other age groups.

� Several 4 digit occupations experienced declines in commencements over the period 1995 to 2000including electricians primarily as a result of a decline in the number of 15 to 19 year oldcommencements.


� For all the selected electrical and electronics trades together but excluding electrical andtelecommunications trades assistants, the number in training grew for the older age cohorts (20 to 24 yearolds and apprentices and trainees of age 25 and more) over the period 1995 to 2000; while that for 15 to 19year olds dropped back to 1995 levels.

� The 25 or more years age cohort had the highest annual growth rate over the period 1995 to 2000 (5.4%)while growth rates for the 20 to 24 and 15 to 19 year old cohorts were 0.7% and -0.3% respectively.

� Although the annual growth rate was highest for the 25 years or higher age cohort, the industrycontinues to be dominated by young persons aged 15 to 24 years of age (85.3% in 2000).

� The electrical distribution and electronics and office equipment tradespersons occupations bothexperienced a decline in the numbers in training in each age cohort; 15 to 19, 20 to 24, and 25 or moreyears; over the period 1995 to 2000.


Table 9: Electrical and electronics trade commencements by age, 1995 to 2000


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1995 – 2000 (%) (%)3123 Electrical engineering associate professionals15 to 19 years (a) (a) 10 10 30 30 43.1 20.020 to 24 years (a) (a) 10 10 (a) 30 49.6 328.625 years and over (a) 0 (a) (a) (a) 40 67.0 387.5Sub total1 10 (a) 30 20 40 90 49.6 125.03124-13 Electronics engineering technician15 to 19 years (a) 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -20 to 24 years (a) (a) 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -25 years and over 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Sub total1 (a) (a) 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -4311 Electricians15 to 19 years 2340 2210 2240 2480 2820 2100 -2.2 -25.820 to 24 years 750 660 760 810 910 660 -2.5 -27.925 years and over 320 300 350 380 410 350 1.6 -14.4Sub total1 3410 3160 3360 3670 4140 3100 -1.9 -25.24312 Refrigeration and airconditioning mechanics15 to 19 years 360 320 380 400 440 400 2.1 -10.020 to 24 years 100 100 110 130 170 100 -0.6 -41.425 years and over 40 30 80 60 90 80 12.6 -15.6Sub total1 500 450 570 600 700 580 2.7 -18.04313 Electrical distribution tradespersons15 to 19 years 90 70 50 50 70 50 -11.6 -33.820 to 24 years 30 30 40 40 40 20 -6.4 -48.625 years and over 30 20 20 30 20 10 -11.6 -41.7Sub total1 140 110 120 120 130 80 -10.4 -38.34314 Electronics instrument tradespersons15 to 19 years 40 50 60 50 70 60 8.1 -14.520 to 24 years 40 20 20 20 20 20 -11.1 -4.825 years and over 10 10 (a) 30 30 10 0.0 -55.2Sub total1 90 70 90 100 120 90 0.7 -22.74315 Electronics and office equipment tradesperson15 to 19 years 200 130 60 60 90 90 -14.1 3.320 to 24 years 70 80 50 70 60 40 -8.1 -22.825 years and over 20 30 40 20 20 20 -2.3 -20.0Sub total1 290 240 150 150 170 160 -11.5 -7.74316 Communications tradespersons15 to 19 years 30 60 70 70 110 100 24.1 -13.420 to 24 years 20 30 40 40 50 50 19.5 -1.525 years and over (a) (a) 10 10 70 (a) -2.4 -92.8Sub total1 60 90 120 120 230 150 20.7 -36.2Other 43 Electrical & electronics tradespersonsnot known at 4-digit level15 to 19 years 390 400 300 340 350 380 -0.4 7.620 to 24 years 120 120 80 120 180 160 7.1 -10.025 years and over 60 70 50 70 80 90 7.2 6.3Sub total1 560 590 440 520 610 630 2.2 2.3ALL ABOVE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TRADESPERSONS15 to 19 years 3460 3230 3190 3460 3990 3210 -1.5 -19.720 to 24 years 1120 1020 1110 1240 1430 1080 -0.7 -24.625 years and over 490 460 570 600 730 590 3.7 -19.6TOTAL1 5070 4710 4870 5300 6150 4870 -0.8 -20.89918 Electrical and telecommunications trades assistants15 to 19 years 40 190 220 240 350 250 44.6 -28.820 to 24 years 30 70 110 160 200 190 46.0 -7.725 years and over 20 60 80 210 270 140 55.7 -49.3Sub total1 80 330 410 610 820 570 47.4 -30.2* Annual rates of growth are compound growth rates1 Totals may include ages other than those in the range 15 to 64 (a) Represents figures between 1 and 9 inclusiveSource: NCVER, March 2001


Table 10: Electrical and electronics trade number in training by age, 31 December 1995 to 2000Number Annual Growth

growth rate* 1999 - 20001995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1995 – 2000 (%) (%)

3123 Electrical engineering associate professionals15 to 19 years (a) (a) 10 10 30 30 76.2 30.820 to 24 years 10 (a) 20 40 40 80 51.6 110.525 years and over 10 (a) (a) 10 20 60 39.0 159.1Sub total1 20 20 40 60 90 170 49.4 98.83124-13 Electronics engineering technician15 to 19 years 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -20 to 24 years (a) (a) (a) (a) 0 0 -100.0 -25 years and over 0 0 (a) (a) 0 0 - -Sub total1 (a) (a) (a) (a) 0 0 -100.0 -4311 Electricians15 to 19 years 3120 2950 2960 3140 3470 3000 -0.8 -13.520 to 24 years 6540 6700 6600 6480 6640 6620 0.2 -0.325 years and over 1160 1300 1400 1380 1500 1490 5.1 -0.9Sub total1 10820 10950 10950 11000 11610 11110 0.5 -4.34312 Refrigeration and airconditioning mechanics15 to 19 years 460 470 500 540 600 590 5.0 -2.320 to 24 years 780 830 860 940 980 1000 5.1 1.825 years and over 140 170 220 230 260 290 14.7 8.3Sub total1 1390 1470 1580 1710 1850 1880 6.2 1.44313 Electrical distribution tradespersons15 to 19 years 90 80 60 40 60 50 -12.4 -21.720 to 24 years 310 310 280 270 220 190 -9.1 -13.425 years and over 150 120 100 90 90 80 -12.3 -13.2Sub total1 560 510 440 400 380 320 -10.5 -14.74314 Electronics instrument tradespersons15 to 19 years 50 60 70 60 70 80 10.8 7.120 to 24 years 110 140 160 190 160 160 7.4 -4.325 years and over 50 80 80 100 80 70 5.5 -19.0Sub total1 210 280 310 350 320 300 7.7 -5.74315 Electronics and office equipment tradesperson15 to 19 years 210 180 100 70 80 90 -15.3 11.120 to 24 years 630 530 410 300 210 160 -24.1 -23.225 years and over 110 80 100 70 50 40 -19.3 -25.0Sub total1 950 790 610 440 340 290 -21.3 -15.34316 Communications tradespersons15 to 19 years 30 60 70 90 100 90 27.1 -5.120 to 24 years 80 100 150 170 190 200 21.0 4.225 years and over 20 20 40 60 90 60 28.1 -34.0Sub total1 120 180 260 310 380 350 23.6 -7.6Other 43 Electrical & electronics tradespersonsnot known at 4-digit level15 to 19 years 440 480 430 410 430 390 -2.3 -7.520 to 24 years 690 820 870 990 1010 1090 9.6 7.525 years and over 180 200 210 250 260 300 10.4 17.6Sub total1 1320 1490 1510 1640 1700 1780 6.3 5.3ALL ABOVE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TRADESPERSONS15 to 19 years 4390 4270 4200 4350 4830 4320 -0.3 -10.520 to 24 years 9150 9440 9350 9370 9460 9500 0.7 0.425 years and over 1830 1960 2160 2190 2360 2380 5.4 0.7TOTAL1 15370 15670 15700 15920 16660 16200 1.0 -2.79918 Electrical and telecommunications trades assistants15 to 19 years 30 140 150 180 230 190 45.9 -17.620 to 24 years 30 90 140 170 200 210 47.3 4.525 years and over 20 60 70 200 210 180 61.5 -16.2Sub total1 80 290 350 550 640 580 50.3 -10.3* Annual rates of growth are compound growth rates1 Totals may include ages other than those in the range 15 to 64(a) Represents figures between 1 and 9 inclusiveSource: NCVER, March 2001


AQF level

This section focuses on trends in commencements and numbers in training from 1995 to 2000 by AustralianQualification Framework (AQF) level.


� In 2000, AQF Certificate III and higher level commencements in all the selected electrical and electronicstrades (excluding electrical and telecommunications trades assistants), dropped to the same level as in1995 (4,750 in 1995 and 4,760 in 2000). This marks the end of a period of steady growth in AQF CertificateIII and higher commencements, with a high of 5,910 commencements reached in 1999. From 1999 to 2000AQF III and higher commencements dropped by 19.5%.

� For all the selected electrical and electronics trades together but excluding electrical andtelecommunications trades assistants, AQF Certificate II and lower level commencements grew stronglyin terms of growth rate but comprised an insignificant number of commencements (less than 10 in 1995rising to 110 in 2000).

� The number of commencements at AQF Certificate level I and II were insignificant for all 4-digitoccupations except electronics and office equipment tradespersons (where they have grown to 50 overthe period 1995 to 2000 and electronics, now comprising about 30% of all commencements in that trade).

� The electrical and telecommunications trades assistants occupation experienced strong growth in thenumber of AQF Certificate I and II level commencements, from 70 in 1995 to 730 in 1999, however thenumber fell to 480 in 2000. AQF Certificate III and higher level commencements rose to 90 for both 1999and 2000.


� For all the selected electrical and electronics trades together but excluding electrical andtelecommunications trades assistants, AQF Certificate III and higher level numbers in training rose from13,980 in 1995 to 15,880 in 2000 with an annual growth rate of 2.6%.

� For all the selected electrical and electronics trades together but excluding electrical andtelecommunications trades assistants, AQF Certificate II and lower level numbers in training grewstrongly in terms of growth rate but comprised an insignificant number in training (10 in 1995 rising to230 in 2000).

� The number in training at AQF Certificate level I and II was insignificant for all 4-digit occupationsexcept for communications tradespersons (where they grew to 70 over the period 1995 to 2000 andelectronics and office equipment tradespersons (where they grew to 40 over the period 1995 to 2000.

� The electrical and telecommunications trades assistants occupation experienced strong growth in thenumber in training at AQF Certificate I and II levels, from 70 in 1995 to 550 in 1999, although there was aslight decline during 2000. The number in training at AQF Certificate III and higher levels has grown to160 in 2000.


Table 11: Electrical and electronics trade commencements by AQF qualification, 1995 to 2000


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1995 – 2000 (%) (%)3123 Electrical engineering associate professionalsCertificate I & II 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Cert. III & higher (a) (a) 30 20 40 90 58.5 125.0Not known (a) (a) 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 10 (a) 30 20 40 90 49.6 125.03124-13 Electronics engineering technicianCertificate I & II 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Cert. III & higher (a) (a) 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -Not known 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Sub total (a) (a) 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -4311 ElectriciansCertificate I & II (a) (a) (a) 0 (a) 0 -100.0 -100.0Cert. III & higher 3270 3070 3280 3670 4140 3100 -1.1 -25.2Not known 140 90 70 0 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 3410 3160 3360 3670 4140 3100 -1.9 -25.24312 Refrigeration and airconditioning mechanicsCertificate I & II 0 0 0 50 40 (a) - -93.2Cert. III & higher 490 440 550 550 660 570 3.1 -12.9Not known 10 (a) 20 0 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 500 450 570 600 700 580 2.7 -18.04313 Electrical distribution tradespersonsCertificate I & II 0 0 (a) (a) (a) 0 - -100.0Cert. III & higher 140 110 110 120 130 80 -10.4 -36.4Not known 0 (a) (a) 0 0 0 - -Sub total 140 110 120 120 130 80 -10.4 -38.34314 Electronics instrument tradespersonsCertificate I & II 0 0 0 0 (a) (a) - 800.0Cert. III & higher 90 70 80 100 120 80 -1.4 -29.7Not known 0 0 (a) 0 0 0 - -Sub total 90 70 90 100 120 90 0.7 -22.74315 Electronics and office equipment tradespersonCertificate I & II 0 40 70 50 70 50 - -35.7Cert. III & higher 270 180 80 100 100 110 -16.3 12.2Not known 20 20 (a) 0 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 290 240 150 150 170 160 -11.5 -7.74316 Communications tradespersonsCertificate I & II 0 (a) 30 50 120 30 - -72.2Cert. III & higher 50 80 90 70 110 120 18.2 1.9Not known (a) (a) (a) (a) 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 60 90 120 120 230 150 20.7 -36.2Other 43 Electrical & electronics tradespersonsnot known at 4-digit levelCertificate I & II (a) (a) 0 (a) (a) 20 39.3 950.0Cert. III & higher 430 510 360 520 610 610 7.2 -0.8Not known 130 80 70 (a) 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 560 590 440 520 610 630 2.2 2.3ALL ABOVE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TRADESPERSONSCertificate I & II (a) 40 100 150 240 110 79.3 -54.1Cert. III & higher 4750 4460 4590 5150 5910 4760 0.0 -19.5Not known 310 210 180 (a) 0 0 -100.0 -TOTAL 5070 4710 4870 5300 6150 4870 -0.8 -20.89918 Electrical and telecommunications trades assistantsCertificate I & II 70 300 380 590 730 480 45.2 -34.3Cert. III & higher 0 (a) (a) 10 90 90 - 3.3Not known (a) 20 30 (a) 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 80 330 410 610 820 570 47.4 -30.2* Annual rates of growth are compound growth rates (a) Represents figures between 1 and 9 inclusiveSource: NCVER, March 2001


Table 12: Electrical and electronics trade number in training by AQF qualification, 31 December 1995 to 2000


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1995 – 2000 (%) (%)3123 Electrical engineering associate professionalsCertificate I & II 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Cert. III & higher 20 10 40 60 90 170 56.9 101.2Not known (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 0 -100.0 -100.0Sub total 20 20 40 60 90 170 49.4 98.83124-13 Electronics engineering technicianCertificate I & II 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Cert. III & higher (a) (a) (a) (a) 0 0 -100.0 -Not known 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Sub total (a) (a) (a) (a) 0 0 -100.0 -4311 ElectriciansCertificate I & II (a) (a) (a) 0 0 0 -100.0 -Cert. III & higher 10170 10490 10690 10870 11530 11070 1.7 -4.0Not known 650 450 260 140 80 40 -43.3 -51.3Sub total 10820 10950 10950 11000 11610 11110 0.5 -4.34312 Refrigeration and airconditioning mechanicsCertificate I & II (a) 0 0 80 110 90 145.4 -15.2Cert. III & higher 1350 1440 1540 1600 1720 1770 5.6 2.8Not known 40 30 40 30 20 10 -17.2 -33.3Sub total 1390 1470 1580 1710 1850 1880 6.2 1.44313 Electrical distribution tradespersonsCertificate I & II 0 0 (a) (a) (a) (a) - 0.0Cert. III & higher 540 490 430 400 370 320 -10.3 -14.9Not known 20 10 (a) (a) 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 560 510 440 400 380 320 -10.5 -14.74314 Electronics instrument tradespersonsCertificate I & II 0 0 0 0 (a) (a) - 800.0Cert. III & higher 210 280 310 350 320 290 7.2 -8.2Not known (a) 0 (a) (a) 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 210 280 310 350 320 300 7.7 -5.74315 Electronics and office equipment tradespersonCertificate I & II 0 30 60 40 60 40 - -34.5Cert. III & higher 880 700 540 390 280 250 -22.2 -11.0Not known 70 50 10 (a) (a) 0 -100.0 -100.0Sub total 950 790 610 440 340 290 -21.3 -15.34316 Communications tradespersonsCertificate I & II 0 (a) 20 40 110 70 - -34.6Cert. III & higher 90 150 220 260 270 280 26.8 4.1Not known 40 30 10 (a) (a) 0 -100.0 -100.0Sub total 120 180 260 310 380 350 23.6 -7.6Other 43 Electrical & electronics tradespersonsnot known at 4-digit levelCertificate I & II (a) (a) (a) 10 (a) 20 19.6 266.7Cert. III & higher 730 1070 1200 1460 1610 1730 18.7 7.0Not known 570 420 310 170 80 40 -42.8 -53.3Sub total 1320 1490 1510 1640 1700 1780 6.3 5.3ALL ABOVE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TRADESPERSONSCertificate I & II 10 40 90 180 280 230 81.0 -17.4Cert. III & higher 13980 14630 14980 15390 16190 15880 2.6 -2.0Not known 1390 1000 640 350 180 90 -42.5 -51.4TOTAL 15380 15670 15710 15920 16660 16200 1.0 -2.79918 Electrical and telecommunications trades assistantsCertificate I & II 70 270 320 530 550 420 43.6 -25.0Cert. III & higher 0 (a) (a) 10 90 160 - 80.9Not known (a) 20 30 (a) 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 80 290 350 550 640 580 50.3 -10.3* Annual rates of growth are compound growth rates (a) Represents figures between 1 and 9 inclusive Source: NCVER, March 2001


Expected duration

This section focuses on trends in numbers in training from 1995 to 2000 by expected duration of apprenticeand trainee contracts (table 13).

� For all selected electrical and electronics trade occupations considered together (excluding electrical andtelecommunications trades assistants), the number of apprentices and trainees undertaking contracts oftraining of more than 2 years duration increased from 14,270 in 1995 to 15,520 in 2000, with an annualrate of growth of 1.7%. They continue to dominate the total number in training, comprising 95.8% of allcontracts in 2000.

� For all the selected electrical and electronics trades together but excluding electrical andtelecommunications trades assistants, the number of apprentices and trainees undertaking contracts oftraining of 2 years or less declined from 1,110 in 1995 to 680 in 2000, with most of the decline occurringduring 2000.

� The electrical and telecommunications trades assistants occupation experienced strong growth in thenumber in training for contracts of 2 years duration or less. The number in training in contracts of morethan 2 years comprised an insignificant number in training in this occupation.


Table 13: Electrical and electronics trade number in training by expected duration, 31 December 1995 to2000


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1995 – 2000(%)

(%)

3123 Electrical engineering associate professionals2 years or less (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 20 32.0 166.7More than 2 years 20 10 40 60 80 160 52.2 93.8Sub total 20 20 40 60 90 170 49.4 98.83124-13 Electronics engineering technician2 years or less 0 (a) 0 0 0 0 - -More than 2 years (a) (a) (a) (a) 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total (a) (a) (a) (a) 0 0 -100.0 -4311 Electricians2 years or less 820 740 640 750 680 360 -15.3 -47.8More than 2 years 10000 10200 10310 10250 10930 10750 1.5 -1.6Sub total 10820 10950 10950 11000 11610 11110 0.5 -4.34312 Refrigeration and airconditioning mechanics2 years or less 100 120 120 120 120 70 -6.4 -39.3More than 2 years 1280 1350 1460 1590 1730 1800 7.0 4.3Sub total 1390 1470 1580 1710 1850 1880 6.2 1.44313 Electrical distribution tradespersons2 years or less 30 20 (a) (a) 10 (a) -36.5 -72.7More than 2 years 530 490 430 400 360 320 -9.7 -12.9Sub total 560 510 440 400 380 320 -10.5 -14.74314 Electronics instrument tradespersons2 years or less 10 20 20 40 40 20 12.1 -41.0More than 2 years 190 260 290 310 280 280 7.4 -0.7Sub total 210 280 310 350 320 300 7.7 -5.74315 Electronics and office equipment tradesperson2 years or less 70 100 100 90 100 50 -5.9 -46.3More than 2 years 880 690 510 350 250 240 -23.1 -3.3Sub total 950 790 610 440 340 290 -21.3 -15.34316 Communications tradespersons2 years or less (a) 10 50 60 120 80 55.6 -31.1More than 2 years 110 170 210 250 260 270 19.0 3.1Sub total 120 180 260 310 380 350 23.6 -7.6Other 43 Electrical & electronics tradespersonsnot known at 4-digit level2 years or less 70 80 70 120 100 70 0.0 -26.5More than 2 years 1240 1410 1440 1520 1600 1710 6.6 7.2Sub total 1320 1490 1510 1640 1700 1780 6.3 5.3ALL ABOVE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICSTRADESPERSONS2 years or less 1110 1090 1010 1190 1170 680 -9.5 -42.2More than 2 years 14270 14580 14700 14720 15480 15520 1.7 0.2Sub total 15380 15670 15710 15920 16660 16200 1.0 -2.79918 Electrical and telecommunications trades assistants2 years or less 80 290 340 530 610 540 48.1 -12.2More than 2 years 0 0 (a) 10 30 40 - 24.2Sub total 80 290 350 550 640 580 50.3 -10.3* Annual rates of growth are compound growth rates (a) Represents figures between 1 and 9 inclusiveSource: NCVER, March 2001


Full time status

This section focuses on trends in commencements and numbers in training from 1995 to 2000 by full timestatus.


� For all the selected electrical and electronics trades together but excluding electrical andtelecommunications trades assistants, the number of apprentices and trainees who commenced a fulltime contract rose slightly from 4,680 in 1995 to 4,810 in 2000 at an annual compound growth rate of 0.6%.Those commencing a part time contract decreased from 90 in 1995 to 60 in 2000.

� The number of commencements in part time contracts were insignificant for all 4-digit occupations. Thebiggest growth occurred for electricians where they have grown to 40 in 2000. The biggest declineoccurred for electrical distribution tradespersons where they declined from 60 in 1995 to zero in 2000.

� The number of part time contracts in the electrical and telecommunications trades assistants occupationscomprised an insignificant proportion of all commencements for each year 1995 to 2000.


� For all the selected electrical and electronics trades together but excluding electrical andtelecommunications trades assistants, the number of apprentices and trainees in training in a full timecontract rose from 14,190 in 1995 to 15,850 in 2000 at an annual compound growth rate of 2.2%. Thenumber in a part time contract have almost halved in the same period of time, from 250 in 1995 to 140 in2000.

� In 2000, the number in part time contracts were insignificant for all 4-digit occupations. The biggestgrowth occurred for electricians where they have grown to 60 over the period 1995 to 2000. The biggestdecline occurred for electrical distribution tradespersons where they declined from 180 in 1995 to 40 in2000.

� The number of part time contracts in the electrical and telecommunications trades assistants occupationscomprised an insignificant proportion of all numbers in training for each year 1995 to 2000.


Table 14: Electrical and electronics trade commencements by full time status, 1995 to 2000Number Annual Growth

growth rate* 1999 - 20001995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1995 – 2000 (%) (%)

3123 Electrical engineering associate professionalsFull time 10 (a) 30 20 40 90 49.6 125.0Part time 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Not known 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Sub total 10 (a) 30 20 40 90 49.6 125.03124-13 Electronics engineering technicianFull time (a) (a) 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -Part time 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Not known 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Sub total (a) (a) 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -4311 ElectriciansFull time 3320 3050 3260 3610 4110 3060 -1.6 -25.4Part time 0 0 (a) 10 40 40 - 2.8Not known 90 110 90 50 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 3410 3160 3360 3670 4140 3100 -1.9 -25.24312 Refrigeration and airconditioning mechanicsFull time 470 430 530 590 700 570 3.8 -18.2Part time 20 (a) 10 (a) (a) (a) -17.8 20.0Not known 20 10 30 (a) 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 500 450 570 600 700 580 2.7 -18.04313 Electrical distribution tradespersonsFull time 80 70 70 100 130 80 -0.2 -38.3Part time 60 30 40 20 0 0 -100.0 -Not known 0 (a) (a) 0 0 0 - -Sub total 140 110 120 120 130 80 -10.4 -38.34314 Electronics instrument tradespersonsFull time 90 70 80 90 120 90 0.4 -22.9Part time 0 0 0 (a) (a) (a) - 0.0Not known 0 0 (a) (a) 0 0 - -Sub total 90 70 90 100 120 90 0.7 -22.74315 Electronics and office equipment tradespersonFull time 280 230 150 140 160 150 -12.4 -7.1Part time (a) (a) 0 (a) 10 10 20.1 -16.7Not known (a) (a) 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 290 240 150 150 170 160 -11.5 -7.74316 Communications tradespersonsFull time 60 90 120 120 230 150 20.2 -37.3Part time 0 (a) 0 (a) (a) (a) - 215.8Not known 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Sub total 60 90 120 120 230 150 20.7 -36.2Other 43 Electrical & electronics tradespersonsnot known at 4-digit levelFull time 360 420 320 500 610 630 11.6 2.3Part time (a) (a) (a) (a) 0 0 -100.0 -Not known 190 160 110 30 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 560 590 440 520 610 630 2.2 2.3ALL ABOVE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TRADESPERSONSFull time 4680 4370 4570 5180 6100 4810 0.6 -21.1Part time 90 50 60 40 60 60 -8.1 5.1Not known 300 290 240 90 0 0 -100.0 -TOTAL 5070 4710 4870 5300 6150 4870 -0.8 -20.89918 Electrical and telecommunications trades assistantsFull time 70 290 340 590 800 570 50.2 -28.9Part time 0 20 30 (a) 20 (a) - -73.9Not known (a) 20 50 10 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 80 330 410 610 820 570 47.4 -30.2* Annual rates of growth are compound growth rates (a) Represents figures between 1 and 9 inclusiveSource: NCVER, March 2001


Table 15: Electrical and electronics trade number in training by full time status, 31 December 1995 to 2000


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1995 – 2000 (%) (%)3123 Electrical engineering associate professionalsFull time 20 20 40 60 90 170 49.4 98.8Part time 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Not known 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Sub total 20 20 40 60 90 170 49.4 98.83124-13 Electronics engineering technicianFull time (a) (a) (a) (a) 0 0 -100.0 -Part time 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Not known 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Sub total (a) (a) (a) (a) 0 0 -100.0 -4311 ElectriciansFull time 10590 10660 10660 10720 11390 10940 0.7 -3.9Part time 0 0 (a) 10 40 60 - 74.3Not known 230 290 290 270 190 110 -14.5 -44.7Sub total 10820 10950 10950 11000 11610 11110 0.5 -4.34312 Refrigeration and airconditioning mechanicsFull time 1310 1390 1480 1630 1790 1840 7.1 2.6Part time 50 40 40 30 20 20 -20.8 -25.0Not known 30 40 60 50 40 20 -7.8 -44.4Sub total 1390 1470 1580 1710 1850 1880 6.2 1.44313 Electrical distribution tradespersonsFull time 360 320 270 270 300 280 -4.8 -5.7Part time 180 180 170 130 80 40 -27.3 -50.7Not known 10 10 (a) (a) 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 560 510 440 400 380 320 -10.5 -14.74314 Electronics instrument tradespersonsFull time 210 280 310 340 310 300 7.7 -4.8Part time 0 0 0 (a) (a) (a) - 100.0Not known (a) 0 (a) (a) (a) 0 -100.0 -100.0Sub total 210 280 310 350 320 300 7.7 -5.74315 Electronics and office equipment tradespersonFull time 930 770 600 430 330 270 -21.8 -16.3Part time 10 10 (a) (a) 10 20 6.4 7.1Not known (a) (a) (a) (a) 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 950 790 610 440 340 290 -21.3 -15.34316 Communications tradespersonsFull time 120 180 260 310 380 350 23.3 -8.4Part time 0 (a) 0 (a) (a) (a) - 300.0Not known 0 0 0 (a) 0 0 - -Sub total 120 180 260 310 380 350 23.6 -7.6Other 43 Electrical & electronics tradespersonsnot known at 4-digit levelFull time 640 910 1040 1290 1490 1700 21.4 13.8Part time (a) 10 20 20 (a) (a) -15.0 -50.0Not known 660 570 460 340 200 90 -33.7 -56.9Sub total 1320 1490 1510 1640 1700 1780 6.3 5.3ALL ABOVE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TRADESPERSONSFull time 14190 14530 14650 15050 16070 15850 2.2 -1.4Part time 250 240 240 200 150 140 -11.2 -10.4Not known 940 910 820 670 430 210 -25.9 -50.8TOTAL 15380 15670 15710 15920 16660 16200 1.0 -2.79918 Electrical and telecommunications trades assistantsFull time 70 260 280 530 620 560 52.3 -10.3Part time 0 10 30 (a) 20 20 - -9.5Not known (a) 20 50 20 0 0 -100.0 -Sub total 80 290 350 550 640 580 50.3 -10.3* Annual rates of growth are compound growth rates (a) Represents figures between 1 and 9 inclusiveSource: NCVER, March 2001


Geographic region by State/Territory

This section focuses on trends in commencements from 1995 to 2000 by geographic region of the residentiallocation of apprentices and trainees by State/Territory for electrical and electronics trades (excluding 9918electrical and telecommunications trades assistants, table 16).

� Looking at Australia as a whole for electrical and electronics trades and comparing 1995 with 2000, thenumbers of commencements rose for apprentices and trainees residing in capital cities and in Australia’srural areas while numbers declined for apprentices and trainees who live in other metropolitan areas andin Australia’s remote regions. It should be noted, however, that from 1999 and 2000 commencements inelectrical and electronics trades apprenticeships and traineeships fell significantly across all majorgeographic regions.

� Over the period 1995 to 2000, there was a mix of growth and decline in electrical and electronics tradecommencements across States and Territories. Victoria experienced the highest annual growth rate overthe period 1995 to 2000 of 7.7%, from 1,010 commencements in 1995 to 1,470 in 2000.

� From 1999 to 2000 electrical and electronics trade commencements dropped in all States and Territories,except the Northern Territory (up 31.5%).


Table 16: Electrical & electronics trade* commencements by geographic region by State/Territory, 1995 to 2000Number Annual Growth

growth rate* 1999 - 20001995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1995 – 2000 (%) (%)

New South WalesCapital city 1050 1050 1140 1100 1330 690 -8.0 -47.7Other metro. 250 290 250 200 210 170 -7.7 -22.3Rural 330 300 300 340 340 260 -4.6 -23.5Remote 10 (a) (a) (a) 10 (a) -14.5 -49.7Total1 1910 1750 1740 1680 1920 1140 -9.8 -40.5VictoriaCapital city 750 610 700 820 940 1070 7.2 13.3Other metro. 30 30 20 40 40 30 -0.7 -26.3Rural 220 200 220 250 460 340 9.6 -25.3Remote (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 38.0 25.0Total1 1010 840 960 1120 1470 1470 7.7 -0.1QueenslandCapital city 420 390 440 510 630 440 0.9 -30.0Other metro. 150 120 110 150 200 140 -1.8 -31.0Rural 370 390 360 430 510 370 -0.3 -27.3Remote 110 110 120 80 100 90 -4.9 -18.3Total1 1070 1010 1040 1190 1450 1040 -0.5 -28.5Western AustraliaCapital city 300 360 360 400 430 390 5.3 -9.0Other metro. 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Rural 100 90 120 100 120 90 -2.3 -22.4Remote 80 80 100 100 80 90 4.1 12.0Total1 490 530 580 610 630 580 3.5 -8.9South AustraliaCapital city 210 220 200 290 300 270 5.3 -10.7Other metro. 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Rural 80 80 70 90 70 90 2.3 24.3Remote 10 (a) (a) (a) 10 (a) -16.7 -60.0Total1 300 300 280 390 390 360 3.9 -5.7TasmaniaCapital city 50 50 50 40 60 50 -0.8 -7.1Other metro. 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Rural 50 50 50 60 70 50 1.2 -26.4Remote (a) (a) (a) 0 (a) (a) 0.0 100.0Total1 110 100 100 100 130 110 0.0 -17.1Northern TerritoryCapital city 50 50 40 60 30 50 2.9 65.6Other metro. 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Rural (a) 10 (a) 10 (a) 10 4.1 57.1Remote 40 70 50 30 30 30 -5.9 -8.8Total1 100 120 100 110 70 100 -0.4 31.5Australian Capital TerritoryCapital city 90 50 60 110 80 80 -2.2 -6.1Other metro. (a) 0 (a) 0 0 0 -100.0 -Rural 0 (a) (a) 0 0 0 - -Remote 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -Total1 90 50 60 120 90 80 -1.6 -12.8AUSTRALIACapital city 2930 2770 2980 3340 3800 3050 0.8 -19.9Other metro. 430 430 390 390 450 330 -5.0 -26.5Rural 1160 1110 1130 1270 1580 1220 0.9 -22.7Remote 250 280 280 230 250 230 -2.2 -8.5Total1 5070 4710 4870 5300 6150 4870 -0.8 -20.8Source: NCVER, March 2001* Excluding 9918 electrical and telecommunications trades assistants** Annual rates of growth are compound growth rates1 Totals include other regions such as interstate and outside Australia and may include unknown information(a) Represents figures between 1 and 9 inclusive


School attendance status

This section looks at commencements from 1998 to 2000 by school attendance status of apprentices andtrainees (table 17).

� For all selected electrical and electronics trade occupations considered together (excluding electrical andtelecommunications trades assistants), the number of apprentices and trainees who commenced theirapprenticeship or traineeship while still attending school was 20 for 1998, 70 in 1999 and 60 in 2000.These comprised an insignificant proportion of all commencements.

� For the electrical and telecommunications trade assistants occupation, the number of apprentices andtrainees who commenced their apprenticeship or traineeship while still attending school comprised aninsignificant proportion for each year 1998 to 2000.


Table 17: Electrical and electronics trade commencements by school attendance status, 1998 to 2000

Number1998 1999 2000

3123 Electrical engineering associate professionalsStill attending school 0 0 0Finished school 20 40 90Not known (a) (a) (a)Sub total 20 40 903124-13 Electronics engineering technicianStill attending school 0 0 0Finished school 0 0 0Not known 0 0 0Sub total 0 0 04311 ElectriciansStill attending school 20 60 50Finished school 3320 2950 2000Not known 340 1140 1050Sub total 3670 4140 31004312 Refrigeration and airconditioning mechanicsStill attending school 0 (a) (a)Finished school 530 500 340Not known 70 190 230Sub total 600 700 5804313 Electrical distribution tradespersonsStill attending school 0 (a) 0Finished school 120 130 60Not known (a) (a) 30Sub total 120 130 804314 Electronics instrument tradespersonsStill attending school (a) (a) (a)Finished school 90 100 70Not known (a) 20 20Sub total 100 120 904315 Electronics and office equipment tradespersonStill attending school (a) (a) (a)Finished school 130 130 130Not known 10 30 20Sub total 150 170 1604316 Communications tradespersonsStill attending school 0 (a) (a)Finished school 110 120 60Not known 10 110 80Sub total 120 230 150Other 43 Electrical & electronics tradespersons not known at 4-digit levelStill attending school 0 (a) (a)Finished school 420 450 450Not known 100 160 180Sub total 520 610 630ALL ABOVE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TRADESPERSONSStill attending school 20 70 60Finished school 4730 4430 3190Not known 560 1650 1610TOTAL 5300 6150 48709918 Electrical and telecommunications trades assistantsStill attending school (a) 20 (a)Finished school 580 510 310Not known 30 290 260Sub total 610 820 570Source: NCVER, March 2001 (a) Represents figures between 1 and 9 inclusive


4.5 Other trainingThis section looks at the general vocational education and training (VET) student population in 1998 and 1999for electrical and electronics trade occupations.

It should be noted that for the apprentice and trainee data presented elsewhere in this report, the ASCO codeis based on apprentices’ and trainees’ declared vocation, that is, the actual job that they are employed in. Thedata presented in this section are based on occupation codes assigned to courses to indicate the most likelyoccupation relevant to each course. However, students undertaking a VET course may not be employed inthe occupation assigned to the course, or even employed. It should also be remembered that students canenrol in more than one course.

The data in this section therefore provide the amount VET activity relevant to the electrical and electronicstrade occupations. The difference between this and the previously given figures on apprentices and traineescan be viewed as a rough estimate of the amount of non-apprentice and non-trainee VET activity related tothese occupations– regardless of whether or not this training is actually utilised in these occupations.

Indications are that somewhere around 36,000 students3 (excluding electrical and telecommunications tradesassistants) were enrolled in a VET course in 1999 relating to the electrical and electronics trade occupations(table 18). This suggests a slight decrease from 1998 where there were around 40,000 students (table 19).

Noting there was just over 16,500 apprentices and trainees at the end of 1999, indications are that around19,500 students were enrolled in a non-apprentice or non-trainee VET course in 1999 relating to the electricaland electronics trade occupations.

Further, around 5,500 students were enrolled in a non-apprentice or non-trainee VET course in 1999 relatingto electrical and telecommunications trades assistants occupations, a number similar to that in 1998.

3 This number is based on the assumption that the majority of students enrol in a single course

Em

ploy

men

t eng

agem

ent w

ith n

ew a

ppre

ntic

eshi

ps72

in th

e el

ectr

otec

hnol

ogy

indu

stry

Tab

le 1

8: E

lect

rical

and

ele

ctro

nics

trad

es: N

umbe

r of

cou

rse

enro

lmen

ts b

y qu

alifi

catio

n (A

QF

), A

ustr

alia

199

9

Dip

lom

asA

QF

Cer

tific

ate

IV a

ndeq

uiva

lent

AQ

FC

ertif

icat

eIII

and

equi

vale

nt

AQ

FC

ertif

icat

esI a

nd II

Oth

erce

rtifi

cate

s,en

dors

emen

tsan

d ot

her

Sta

tem

ents of

Atta

inm

ent

Non

aw

ard

cour

ses

Tot

alE

nrol

men

ts

3123

Ele

ctric

al E

ngin

eerin

g A

ssoc

iate

Pro

fess

iona

ls2,

410

1,09

069

060

0(a

)14

04,

390

3124

-13

Ele

ctro

nics

Eng

inee

ring

Tec

hnic

ian

1,86

051

0(a

)32

020

030

2,74

0

43 E

lect

rical

& E

lect

roni

cs T

rade

sper

sons

110

1,75

017

,150

2,76

047

01,

120

5,88

029

,240

Su

b T

ota

l4,

370

3,35

017

,840

3,14

049

01,

120

6,05

036

,360

9918

Ele

ctric

al &

Tel

ecom

mun

icat

ions

Tra

des

Ass

ista

nts

0(a

)10

3,21

00

02,

400

5,63

0S

ourc

e: N

CV

ER

200

0 (

a) R

epre

sent

s fig

ures

bet

wee

n 1

and

9 in

clus

ive

Tab

le 1

9: E

lect

rical

and

ele

ctro

nics

trad

es: N

umbe

r of

cou

rse

enro

lmen

ts b

y qu

alifi

catio

n (A

QF

), A

ustr

alia

199

8

Dip

lom

asA

QF

Cer

tific

ate

IV a

ndeq

uiva

lent

AQ

FC

ertif

icat

eIII

and

equi

vale

nt

AQ

FC

ertif

icat

esI a

nd II

Oth

erce

rtifi

cate

s,en

dors

emen

tsan

d ot

her

Sta

tem

ents of

Atta

inm

ent

Non

aw

ard

cour

ses

Tot

alE

nrol

men

ts

3123

Ele

ctric

al E

ngin

eerin

g A

ssoc

iate

Pro

fess

iona

ls3,

470

2,28

040

020

070

106,

250

3124

-13

Ele

ctro

nics

Eng

inee

ring

Tec

hnic

ian

240

840

(a)

290

4030

01,

440

43 E

lect

rical

& E

lect

roni

cs T

rade

sper

sons

130

2,46

017

,090

2,50

02,

790

4,66

03,

390

33,0

10

Su

b T

ota

l3,

840

5,58

017

,500

2,81

02,

820

4,75

03,

400

40,7

00

9918

Ele

ctric

al &

Tel

ecom

mun

icat

ions

Tra

des

Ass

ista

nts

00

302,

550

430

502,

590

5,64

0S

ourc

e: N

CV

ER

200

0 (

a) R

epre

sent

s fig

ures

bet

wee

n 1

and

9 in

clus

ive


Issues of skills shortages

Based on analytical work carried out the NCVER and the Department of Employment,Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB), the NCVER published a report of titledEvidence of skill shortages in the electrotechnology trades. In the report, it was concluded that someskill shortages were emerging in Australia’s skilled electrotechnology trades.

Data supplied to NCVER by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and SmallBusiness (DEWRSB) indicated that net migration and wastage from the electrotechnologytrades in general is projected to be relatively low and lower than for trades generally.However, DEWRSB’s skilled vacancy survey showed substantial growth in electrotechnologyskilled vacancies during 1998 and 1999.

The report found that apprentice and trainee completions are not sufficient to supply all theprojected employment growth and greater priority needs to be placed on training pathwaysoutside of the new apprenticeship system.

The report also suggests that, in the future, employers in the electrotechnology trades willneed to consider looking further than teenagers for new entrants as the number of youngpeople aged 15 to 24 years will stagnate in the future. The report also suggests that even morecritical than increasing numbers in training will be the issue of the relevance and quality oftraining for existing workers, as well as new entrants, to the electrotechnology trades to keepapace of the rapid technological changes in the industry.

References 74

ReferencesAring, M 1997, ‘Federal Republic of Germany: The Dual System of Education and Training’ Center

for Workforce Development, Newton MA.Ball, K and Freeland B (forthcoming), ’Providing training for apprentices and trainees: an analysis

of small and medium sized enterprises in Australia’, NCVER, Adelaide.Chappell, C (forthcoming), ‘The impact of VET system change on the professional culture of VET

practitioners’ NCVER, Adelaide.Curtain, R 1999, ‘Young Peoples’, Transition from Education to Work: Performance Indicators.DETYA (Department of Employment, Education and Training and Youth Affairs) 1998,

‘Apprentices Labour Market Victoria August 1998’, Victorian Labour Economics Office,DETYA, Melbourne.

________ 2000, 'Attrition in Apprenticeships An analysis of apprentices commencing between July 1994and June 1996', Research and Evaluation Branch, DETYA, Canberra.

DEWRSB (Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business) 1998, ‘TheLabour Market for Apprentices in New South Wales', Occupational Analysis and MigrationUnit, New South Wales Labour Economics Office, DEWRSB, Sydney.

________ 1999, ‘Youth Labour Trends in NSW’, NSW Labour Economics Office, DEWRSB, Sydney.Dumbrell, T, de Montfort, R, Finnegan, W (forthcoming), ‘Locational Issues in New

Apprenticeships’, NCVER, Adelaide.European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) 2000a

‘Apprenticeship in the Germany - 1999’, Documentary Dossier Apprenticeship: EU MemberStates, Library and documentation service [cited 31 January 2001]. Available from Internet:http::/www.trainingvillage.gr/etv/library/apprenticeship/country/d.asp

________ 2000b ‘Apprenticeship the United Kingdom - 1999’, Documentary Dossier Apprenticeship:EU Member States, Library and documentation service [cited 31 January 2001]. Availablefrom Internet: http::/www.trainingvillage.gr/etv/library/apprenticeship/country/uk.asp

Gill, I, Dar, A 1996, ‘Germany’s dual system: Lessons for low and middle income countries’,Constraints and innovations in Reform of VET, Worldbank. Available from the internet [cited31 January 2001]:http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/HDNet/HDdocs.nsf/view+to+link+webpages/fd98bc3d742c626b8525684f005a9832?OpenDocument

Gonon, P 1998, ‘New efforts at reform of the Swiss vocational training system’, EuropeanJournal of Vocational Training, no.17, pp.45-51.

Hanhart, S, Bossio, S 1998 ‘Costs and benefits of dual apprenticeship: Lessons from the Swisssystem’ Internation Labour Review, vol.137, no.4, pp.483-500.

John, D 2000, 'Evidence of skill shortages in the electrotechnology trades’, NCVER, Adelaide 2000.Kapuscinski, C 2000, ‘Apprenticeships and traineeships in Australia in the last 30 years: An

empirical overview of the evidence’, paper presented to the 29th Conference ofEconomists, 3-6 July, Gold Coast.

________ 2000, 'Entry level training in Australia in the nineties: An analysis of factors influencingthe provision of employer training to apprentices and trainees', Research and EvaluationBranch Report, no.6, DETYA, Canberra.

Kodz, J, Tackey, N, Pollard, E, Dench, S, Tyers, C, Dewson, S 2000, ‘Modern Apprenticeships andNational Traineeships: Skills utilisation and progression’, Department for Education andEmployment, The Crown Copyright Unit, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Norwich.

NCVER (National Centre for Vocational Education Reasearch) 2001, Australian Apprenticeships:Facts, fiction and future, NCVER, Adelaide.

________ 1998, The Outlook for training in Australia’s industries, NCVER, Adelaide.________ 1999, Australian apprentice and trainee statistics: Annual statistics 1999, NCVER, Adelaide.________ Australian apprentice and trainee statistics: Electrical and electronic trades 1995-1999, NCVER,

Adelaide.________ Australian vocational education and training statistics 1999: An overview, NCVER, Adelaide.________ Australian vocational education and training statistics 1999: In detail, NCVER, Adelaide.QCCI (Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry) 2000, ‘The Problems of Marginalised

Youth in Australia – an Industry Perspective’, QCCI, Brisbane.

References 75

Sims, D, Golden, S, Blenkinsop, S, Lewis, G 2000, ‘Barriers to take-up of Modern Apprenticeshipsand National Traineeships by SMEs and specific sectors’, Department for Education andEmployment, The Crown Copyright Unit, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Norwich.

Smith, A and Hayton, G (1999) 'What drives enterprise training? Evidence from Australia' TheInternational Journal of Human Resource Management vol.10, no.2, April, pp.251-272.

Smith, A, Roberts,P, Noble,C, Hayton, G and Thorne,E 1999, 'Enterprise training: the factors thataffect demand’, State Training Board, Victoria.

Stalder, B 1999, ‘Participation of companies in Swiss vocational training: Trends and prospectsrelated to vocational training reforms’, paper presented at the European conference onEducation Research, Lahti, Finland, pp.22-25 September 1999.

Williams-Wynn, Marina & Wiltshire, Kenneth 1999, 'Economic and Political Overview:Background Paper’, CEDA White Paper No.20, January 1999.

Appendix 1 76

Appendix 1

Literature review

IntroductionIn Australia, as elsewhere, most research in the field of vocational education and training hasbeen driven by the perceived need to reform the public provision of training and therefore hasfocused on the supply side of the training market. Research on the demand side has primarilyconcentrated on the processes of training within the enterprise and the benefits to employersfrom an investment in training. To date, limited research has been conducted into the drivers ofapprenticeship training per se.

Processes of training within the enterpriseSmith and Hayton (1999) conducted case studies of forty-two individual enterprises in fiveindustry sectors: construction, electronics manufacturing, food processing, retail and finance.The analysis of the case studies identified a number of factors that appear to impact on theenterprise decision to train employees. These include:

� to improve employee performance;

� to improve the adaptability and flexibility of the workforce;

� investments in new technology;

� the adoption of new work practices and moves towards the more sophisticated systems ofhuman resource management; and

� changes in business strategy.

Training drivers are those factors that immediately give rise to a demand for training withinthe enterprise. Several of the training drivers clearly identified in the case studies wereworkplace change, new technology and product innovation, and quality initiatives (such astotal quality management). However there are other factors that appear to act as moderatorsby filtering the effects of training drivers, influencing the nature and extent of trainingactivity. The main moderating effects include the size of the organization, the industry sector,the occupational structure, the training infrastructure, the commitment of senior managementto training and industrial relations. Industrial relations processes, particularly awardrestructuring and enterprise bargaining, have emphasized the importance of training

Enterprise sizeEnterprise size was strongly associated with both the volume and diversity of training. Smithand Hayton (1999) attribute this to the greater economies of scale that can be achieved intraining by larger enterprises and the greater ability of a larger enterprise to provide internal,formal training and to support this training with high investments in training infrastructure.Larger enterprises have more skilled and professional employees who require higher levels oftraining. In contrast to smaller enterprises, larger enterprises often have well-developednetworks with training providers and with training authorities.

Appendix 1 77

Industry tradition of trainingIndustries have their own traditions of training that are expressed very clearly at theenterprise level and have considerable impact on the level of training provided. For example,in the construction industry there is a very strong tradition of apprentice training. Smith et al(1995) point out that this tradition of support for young tradespersons was most clearlyarticulated by managers in the building and construction enterprises. They themselves oftenworked their way up to positions of management from a trade background and felt it wastheir duty to the industry and to society at large to further the apprenticeship system withintheir own enterprises.

Occupational structureSmith and Hayton (1999) identify that occupational structure is closely linked to initialvocational training and that different occupations clearly require different qualifications interms of duration, content and level of post-school qualifications.

Entry-level trainingFrom the firm’s perspective, apprentice and trainee training is an important component ofoverall training. Kapuscinski (2000), using data from the ABS 1996 Training ExpenditureSurvey, calculated that in 1996 the direct expenditure on wages and salaries for peopleundertaking apprenticeship training, clerical training, labourer training and computer skillstraining amounted to $190m. The wage and salary costs of employee training in the fourexpenditure categories that encompass entry-level training accounted for almost 17 per cent offirms’ overall expenditure on training. The bulk of entry level training occurs in the trade andapprentice training and clerical training expenditure categories. Each of these categoriesaccounted for 5 per cent of firms’ total expenditure on training.

Kapuscinski (2000) reports that apprenticeships and traineeships have become an increasinglyattractive employment proposition for 15-24 year olds. The proportion of apprentices andtrainees to people in the 15-24 year age group employed full time increased from just over 8per cent in 1968 to 28 per cent in 1999. Over the same period, the proportion of apprentices to15-24 year olds employed in total (either full or part-time) more than doubled.

Role of the business cycleKapuscinski (2000) reported preliminary findings of a model of entry-level training using dataon the total number of contracts of training for entry-level trainees (ie the total stock ofapprentices and trainees at a given point in time) from 1968 to 1998. The evidence from themodel points to the significant impact of business cycles on the employment of apprenticesand trainees. A rising unemployment rate leads to a fall in entry-level training and ispositively related to both the vacancy rate and the employment-population ratio. Theseresults demonstrate the importance of the state of the labour market on the growth of entry-level training.

Factors affecting provision of apprentice and trainee trainingAnalyses of factors affecting the provision of apprentice and trainee training by firms havebeen conducted by Kapuscinski (forthcoming) and Ball and Freeland (forthcoming). Thestudy by Kapuscinski is an analysis of the 1993 and 1996 panels of the ABS TrainingExpenditure Survey and the Training Practices Survey. The study by Ball and Freelandutilises unit record level data from the ABS Business Longitudinal Survey (BLS) 1994-95 to1997-98.

Both regression analyses provide evidence of the significant effect of a training culture on anemployer’s propensity to provide entry-level training.

Appendix 1 78

A training culture can be defined in a number of ways, such as, Kapuscinski’s (forthcoming)expenditure measure and business planning, and the decision-maker’s commitment totraining (Smith et al. [1996]).

There are three principal elements of a training culture in small and medium-sized enterprisesthat emerge from the analysis of the BLS by Ball and Freeland (forthcoming). These are:

� the training experiences of enterprise decision-makers;

� the effect of union membership on the provision of training; and

� the training practices of the enterprise.

The method of training delivery and the training providers used for training are bothimportant influences in the creation of a training culture.

In addition to the influence of a training culture, Kapuscinski’s research presents a set offactors that influence the provision of apprentice and traineeship training. The characteristicsof firms found to affect the provision of entry-level training include:

� size of firm – exerts a positive influence on the provision of entry level training. Privatefor profit companies appear more likely to provide traineeships than other types of firmsbut are less likely to provide apprenticeships

� age of firm – the younger the firm the less likely it is to provide traineeships but the age ofthe firm has no influence on other categories of entry level training

� share of full-time and permanent employees –the higher the share of full-time employeesthe higher the probability of a firm providing entry level training

� competitiveness of the industry - the higher the concentration of an industry the lowerthe likelihood of provision of apprenticeships by a firm (ie those industries with very fewfirms operating are less likely to provide apprenticeships).

Ball and Freeland (forthcoming) investigated the impact of both training and non-trainingcharacteristics on the propensity of a firm to provide entry-level training.

‘Non-training’ enterprise characteristics

The ‘non-training’ enterprise characteristics that significantly influence the provision of entry-level training by a firm are:

� the industry in which the enterprise operates;

� the educational background of the decision-maker - enterprises with trade-educateddecision-makers were more than 80% more likely than enterprises with university-educated decision-makers to provide such training;

� expanding levels of trade union membership among employees - while the level of unionmembership among workers of an enterprise is not a significant influence on theprovision of apprentice and trainee training, enterprises with workforces which expandedtheir union membership between 1994–95 and 1997–98 were more likely to provideapprentice and trainee training than those enterprises whose workforces experienceddeclining or stable levels of union membership;

� the size of the enterprise (entry-level measure) - when compared to enterprises employingbetween 1 and 5 employees, enterprises with more than 20 employees are significantlymore likely to provide apprentice and trainee training;

� increase in employment - enterprises that expanded total employment between 1994–95and 1997–98 were significantly more likely to provide apprentice and trainee training thanenterprises with stable or declining employment levels;

Appendix 1 79

� level of full-time employment - enterprises with a high percentage of their workforceemployed full-time are more likely to provide trade and apprenticeship and traineeshiptraining than other firms; and

� increasing skills needs ratio (measured by the ratio of new employees to totalemployment) - enterprises with increasing skills needs ratios were 50 per cent more likelyto provide apprentice and trainee training than other enterprises.

‘Training’ enterprise characteristics

Some training-based characteristics were found to significantly influence the provision ofentry-level training. These are:

� training practices - the higher the percentage of employees receiving structured training(up to 75 per cent), the higher the likelihood that the enterprise would provide apprenticeand trainee training. Enterprises that provide staff with on-the-job training aresignificantly more likely to provide apprentice and trainee training than other enterprises;and

� providers of training - enterprises that utilised either associations (professional andindustry) or TAFE for training were significantly more likely to provide apprentice andtrainee training than other enterprises. Enterprises using a university to provide trainingwere significantly less likely to train trade apprentice and trainees than other enterprises.

An international perspectiveThe following summarises relevant research on apprenticeship training in the UnitedKingdom, Switzerland and Germany to provide an international perspective on the factorsthat influence the demand for apprentices.

The relationship that exists between the firm and the educational system is not a new concept.The roles shared by the firm and the college to train apprentices and trainees have beenembedded in apprenticeship systems of many countries. Over the years, the participation offirms in apprenticeship training has constituted one of the major driving forces in trainingnumbers.

United Kingdom

Enterprise training

According to a study conducted by the University of Warwick on the role of training at theenterprise level (Smith et al 1995), long-term commitment of the organisation to training canonly be achieved by incorporating factors that set training in progress and factors thatestablish training within the enterprise.

Factors that set training in progress are associated with the strategy making process wherebyorganisations have to be more competitive in the labour market and need to incorporatetraining as part of the corporate strategy. Factors that establish training within the enterpriseinvolve external factors (such as the availability of skills for the labour market, externalsupport for training and legislative requirements) and internal factors (such as commitmentfrom the executives, training infrastructure within the organisations and the organisation’sbudget).

Therefore, to encourage apprenticeship training in firms it is important to build the linksbetween the training and strategy and the conditions in which they must exist in theorganisation.

Appendix 1 80

Modern Apprenticeships

In the United Kingdom the traditional apprenticeship system has undergone radical changesince the early 1980s. The industrial relations and training reforms of the UK governmentduring the 1980s and 1990s, together with the decline in the manufacturing industry, resultedin the almost complete disappearance of the traditional apprenticeship system in the late1980s and early 1990s. In response to the severe decline in the apprenticeship system and theskills shortages that beset the UK economy in the 1990s, the modern apprenticeship systemwas introduced in 1995.

Modern apprenticeships (renamed ‘advanced modern apprenticeships’ in 2000) introducedstructured training in new occupations which have not in the past been supported bytraditional apprenticeships. Two years later, the UK government introduced the nationaltraineeship scheme (renamed ‘foundation modern apprenticeships’ in 2000). The nationaltraineeship scheme provides trainees with a broad range of work-based skills such ascommunication, problem solving, working with number and information technology.Following the completion of a national traineeship, candidates can continue working, enterfull-time or part-time education or pursue a modern apprenticeship.

The modern apprenticeship system has apparently been successful. The number ofapprentices undergoing training increased to over 217 thousand in March 2000 from 180thousand in 1995. In addition to the growth in numbers of apprentices, non-traditionaloccupations such as business administration, retailing and hospitality now feature in the topfive modern apprenticeship occupational categories (CEDEFOP 2000).

The drivers of employers’ decisions to take on modern apprenticeships

The growth in training numbers is supported by the positive perception by employers of themodern apprenticeship initiatives. Kodz and associates (2000) conducted in-depth casestudies with 49 employers from the business administration, construction, hospitality,information technology, motor and retail sectors. Analysis identified that employers believethat modern apprenticeships provide better opportunities to deliver quality training.However, the usefulness of each modern apprenticeship initiative was dependent of thesector of employment. For instance, employers in the retail sector believed that nationaltraineeships or foundation modern apprenticeships were more useful programs, whileemployers in the motor vehicle service and repair sector preferred the modernapprenticeships or advanced modern apprenticeships.

Generally, employers in the UK are involved in apprenticeship training to continue their longestablished tradition of providing training for young people (Kodz et al 2000). However,employers from different sectors have different reasons for being involved in the training ofapprentices. For example, many employers in the construction sector believe that modernapprenticeship initiatives provide good opportunities to train young people with the skillsthat meet the needs of the construction sector, while being eligible for funding from thegovernment. On the other hand, employers in the information technology sector are taking onapprentices because of recruitment difficulties. Employment in information technology isvaried in nature and spreads across a number of sectors. Hence the modern apprenticeshipinitiatives assist these employers to recruit appropriate future employees.

Kodz and associates (2000) found that the level of knowledge about apprenticeship training isassociated with the size of the organisation. For instance, large employers in the businessadministration sector are involved in apprenticeship training to continue their historicalinvolvement with youth training programs and to promote their corporate image and theirreputation as good employers who provide training opportunities. Small employers on thehand, have a less strategic view of modern apprenticeships. Their involvement withapprenticeship training is usually at the suggestion of a young person wishing to take up anapprenticeship or through the marketing strategies of the training providers or colleges.

Appendix 1 81

Barriers to take-up modern apprenticeships

Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) of less than 249 employees contribute asignificant element to the UK economy. Approximately 3 in every 5 employees are employedby SMEs (Sims et al 2000). At the start of 1998, SMEs accounted for 99 per cent of the 3.7million businesses. Therefore, the role of SMEs in training their employees will not only beessential for the growth of their businesses but also the UK economy. A study conducted bySims and associates (2000) on 100 employers from the health and social care, informationtechnology, road haulage and distribution, sports and recreation, arts and entertainment,printing and graphic, clothing manufacturing and international trade sectors found that SMEsare not taking on apprentices because of the SME business culture. SMEs do not have thecapacity and infrastructure to support the use of apprenticeships and thereby prefer to recruitemployees who are immediately productive.

The study identified that SMEs are not negative about the apprenticeship initiatives. Rather,they are reluctant to take on apprentices because of their limited understanding of theinitiatives. SMEs indicated that the main barriers to take up apprentices also include lack ofrelevance and support. SMEs would take on apprentices if their businesses expanded.However, SMEs suggested that it is important to consult employers about the training needsso that the initiatives are more relevant and industry specific.

The Swiss dual systemDuring the industrial revolution, the number of people taking up apprenticeships declineddramatically and those who would normally have taken up an apprenticeship opted for awage–earning job because the level of remuneration and working conditions were better.

During this time, small business was also concerned with issues arising from technologicalchange, export orientation of textile and engineering sectors and the growing competitionfrom foreign products. Small business called upon the Swiss Association of Industry toimprove the situation. The Association decided to improve the situation by re–designing theapprenticeship system. The Swiss industry asked the central government authorities tosubsidies for the establishment of further vocational training. As a result, the first governmentintervention in vocational training was implemented in 1884.

In 1930, the Federal Law on Vocational Training was passed. This Law mandated that on–the–job training was to be supplemented by compulsory school attendance. This system was alsoknown as the ‘dual system’. Although there have been revisions to this Law, the concept ofapprenticeship training involving compulsory school attendance and on–the–job training is astrong feature of the Swiss apprenticeship system today (Gonon 1999).

Traditionally, the Swiss apprenticeship system was long considered to be the most effectivemethod of training young people with the appropriate qualifications to the needs ofemployers. However, there has been a steady decline in the number of apprentices. Over theten years from 1985 to 1995 there was a 30 per cent decrease in the number of apprentices inenterprises (Hanhart & Bossio 1998). Over the same period of time there was only an 8 percent reduction in the total number of jobs. Hanhart & Bossio (1998) suggested that the downtrend in the number of apprentices has been attributed to young people’s inclination toconsider university education, and the supply and demand of training.

In Switzerland, enterprises are not obligated to take on apprentices. However, 30 per cent ofenterprises choose to be involved in apprenticeship training. In 1994, enterprises contributed1.7 billion Swiss francs towards apprenticeship training. This figure represented 26 per cent ofthe total amount of spending on apprenticeship training and 0.5 per cent of Gross DomesticProducts (GDP) in 1994 (Hanhart & Bossio 1998).

Appendix 1 82

The drivers of employers’ decisions to take on apprentices

Hanhart and Bossio (1998) conducted a study of 17 000 enterprises of different sizes toevaluate the effectiveness of the Swiss dual system. Based on analysis of the 900 enterprisesthat provided information regarding the cost of apprenticeships, they identified that smallenterprises did not incur any net costs in apprenticeship training while medium and largeenterprises incurred a net annual cost of 11 000 Swiss francs and 20 000 Swiss francs perapprentice, respectively. The net cost corresponds with the total costs of training anapprentice (that is, the apprentices’ wages, time spent on training, administrative costs, costsof using machinery and premises for training) less the income generated by the training ofapprentices.

The disparities in costs by enterprise size are related to apprentices’ wages and the structureof costs. Young apprentices in small enterprises receive an annual wage of 5,500 Swiss francsas compared to 11,100 Swiss francs in medium-sized enterprises and 14,400 Swiss francs inlarge enterprises (Hanhart & Bossio, 1998). Furthermore, a large number of small enterpriseswere involved in training in the construction sector. Training in this sector involves relativelylow costs compared to high training costs identified in the banking institutions or othertechnologically intensive sectors.

In Switzerland, small and medium sized enterprises account for 99 per cent of employment.Nevertheless, the distribution of apprentices by size of firm is evenly spread, with small,medium and large enterprises comprising 31 per cent, 33 per cent and 36 per cent of allapprenticeship training, respectively.

Responses from 3400 different sized enterprises indicated that enterprises were involved inapprenticeship training because there of a need for suitably skilled replacements for workersleaving the enterprise. The enterprises believe that the dual system yielded better skills thanthose taught by full-time vocational schooling. Enterprises were also providingapprenticeship training to improve the local availability of training and address the shortageof skilled labour on the market. Some enterprises were involved in apprenticeship training tocontinue their enterprise tradition and enhance their enterprises’ image. In addition,enterprises believe that they could recruit new employees better by being familiar with theirapprentices’ performance. Training apprentices also assist enterprises to reduce the costsinvolved in the induction of newly recruited employees (Hanhart and Bossio 1998).

Reasons for ceasing apprenticeship training

In the Hanhart and Bossio (1998) study, enterprises indicated that they ceased apprenticeshiptraining as they do not have the staff available to teach their apprentices. These enterprisesalso indicated that there are no in-house job opportunities to offer apprentices upon thecompletion of their training (Hanhart and Bossio 1998). Furthermore, high training costs andincreasing complexity of regulations associated with apprenticeship were important factorsfor enterprises not wanting to be involved in apprenticeship training (Stalder 1999). Inaddition, enterprises were happy with the skilled workers that they have recruited from theopen market.

In Switzerland, the reduction in the number of apprenticeship places is not related toemployers’ dissatisfaction with the quality and relevance of the training given to apprentices.Over the years, young people are losing interest in the dual apprenticeship system andenterprises are increasingly concerned about the time commitment required in trainingapprentices.

Appendix 1 83

Apprenticeships in GermanyGermany has the most extensive and most studied apprenticeship system in the world. Basedon a strong tradition of craft printing dating back to the middle ages, the modern German‘Dual System’ is a product of the post-war reconstruction which established the consensualGerman industrial relations system and the employer financed apprenticeship system. Theterm ‘dual system’ refers to the fact that training in the German system is based on bothpractical training received in the workplace and theoretical education delivered through thevocational training schools.

The operation of the dual system involves employers, organised labour, school, chambers ofcommerce, trade associations and other government. Unlike the apprenticeship systemsoperating in the United Kingdom and Switzerland, Germany’s employers are responsible forfinancing all aspects related to on-the-job training of apprentices. The employers pay trainingwages to their apprentices and fees to their chambers of commerce and trade associations. Thefees paid to the chambers of commerce are used for supervising the functioning and quality ofthe dual system, while the fees paid to trade associations are used to research future skillneeds. In 1999, the average cost of training an apprentice (including contributing factors) wasDM 35 046 (CEDEFOP 1999).

The drivers of employers’ decisions to take on apprentices

Germany’s employers are not obligated to provide training. However, more than half ofGerman employers participate in the dual system (Aring 1997). Employers participate in thedual system because the dual system is their only source of skilled workers. Participating inthe dual system allows employers access to the best future workers with specific skills thatmeet their industry needs. Most importantly however, the federal law requires employers tohire only workers with the dual system certificate for jobs designated as an apprenticedposition. Therefore, employers who train apprentices have the benefit of accessing skilledworkers without having to pay the high costs associated with employing a skilled workerwith a dual system certificate on the open market.

The level of employers’ participation in the dual system increases with the size of the firm. InGermany, apprentices are more likely to be trained in large enterprises while the very smallfirms are less likely to participate in the dual system. Apprentices who were trained by largeenterprises are more likely to be employed within the enterprise following the completion oftheir training (refer to following table).

Employer participation and trainee retention, by size of firm, 1985 (per cent)

Size Firms with apprentices Post-training retention rate

5-9 workers 35.0 56.0

10-49 workers 59.0 64.0

50-59 workers 78.0 69.0

100-499 workers 91.0 73.0

500-1000 workers 99.5 82.0

1000+ workers 99.6 87.0

Source: Gill and Dar (1996)

Appendix 2 84

Appendix 2

Qualitative study - employer views on apprenticeships andtraineeships in the electrotechnology industry

IntroductionNCVER was commissioned as part of the broader study to undertake a series of in-depthinterviews with three groups of employers in the electrotechnology industry. These employergroups were:

� traditional trainers - those who have always employed apprentices and continue to do so;

� recent trainers – those who have taken on an apprentice in recent months; and

� non-trainers – those who have never employed an apprentice, or no longer do so.

The main purpose of the interviews was to identify the factors influencing an employer’sdecision to engage or not to engage an apprentice, as well as gaining an understanding oftheir attitudes and experiences while working with and training an apprentice.

The results from the in depth interviews have been used extensively in the development ofthe questionnaire for the quantitative stage of the project.

MethodologyOrganisations in Brisbane and Sydney, and one from rural New South Wales, wereinterviewed, with the assistance and cooperation of the National Electrical ContractorsAssociation (NECA). NECA selected names and contact details from its membership list andmade initial contact to seek their agreement to be interviewed. With this agreement in place,NCVER then made an interview appointment.

Interviews were conducted face-to-face between 29 and 31 January 2001. The rural employerwas interviewed by phone. The interviews were conducted either at the company office, onthe work site or at the employer’s home (their business base). A total of 17 interviews wereconducted, 14 of these in enterprises ranging in size from sole trader to major employers.Seven traditional trainers were interviewed, two recent trainers, and five non-trainers. Threegroup training companies (GTC) were also selected for interview, one in Sydney and two inBrisbane.

In larger companies the person interviewed was usually involved with the hiring andmonitoring of apprentices. Sole traders were interviewed directly. In the GTCs, NCVERspoke with a manager who was closely involved with recruitment and deployment ofapprentices. A set of structured questions, developed by NCVER in consultation withDETYA, was used for each interview. A copy of the questions is at Appendix D.

Description of companies/businessesAs outlined previously 14 employers and three GTCs were interviewed. The characteristics ofthe companies or businesses associated with these employers varied as outlined below.

Sole traders and commercial companies

Size Companies ranged in size from small (from sole trader to nine employees) to medium(between 10 and 99 employees).

Appendix 2 85

Sector Whilst all were electrical contractors their type of work ranged widely, includingdomestic, commercial and industrial construction, breakdown and maintenance, heating,cooling, pumping, lighting and data cabling.

Length of contract Work was obtained by word-of-mouth or by advertising, and wasundertaken under a short or long term contract, or no contract at all (as in domestic repairs).Most had assured ongoing work, although one in Brisbane was waiting for a contract to comethrough.

Location Most of the selected companies were based in and operated throughout the broadermetropolitan areas of Brisbane and Sydney; one was in central New South Wales. One whowas based in the city often had contracts for work either interstate or internationally, forwhich they hired local workers.

Apprentices The number of apprentices engaged by any one contractor ranged from one toapproximately 25, and collectively throughout the industry were spread across the four yearlevels.

Recruitment policy Most organisations had a recruitment ‘policy’ relating to taking onapprentices. This policy tended to be closely linked with the present and projected companyworkload and economic conditions or forecasts. In some instances employers in Sydney saidthat they tried to help out the NECA GTC if there was an apprentice needing a placement tomaintain his continuity of experience. One employer said he sometimes tried to find extrawork in these circumstances.

For some, the policy at the time of the interview was not to employ any first year apprenticesthis year, but to keep on apprentices already employed. For others, the policy was to continueto employ apprentices in all years, to ensure a steady supply of workers in the company.Most employers did not have to advertise for apprentices, but recruited from young peoplewho had enquired about work with their company. Some employers tested possibleapprentices while others did not.

Training policy The need for training tended to go hand-in hand with engaging anapprentice, although actual training policies tended not to be specifically defined in thecontractor companies visited

Group Training CompaniesSize see apprentices below

Sector All three GTCs operated in the electrical industry; one also operated in other industrysectors. The GTC interviewed in Sydney was formed by the industry association, NECA, andthe two in Brisbane were private GTCs.

Length of contract The number of apprentices on the books of one GTC was notcurrently sufficient to meet employer demand. About 10-15 employers were currently on thewaiting list for an apprentice; about 50-60 employers had been waiting last year during a timeof peak demand. The GTC indicated that they were mindful not to engage numbers beyondthe capacity of the industry to employ, especially in times of economic uncertainty. The otherGTCs were actively seeking employers to take on apprentices to ensure that they did not havetoo long between placements. One GTC stated that they had to put in place a minimumrequirement of one weeks employment for employers taking on an apprentice.

Location The GTCs selected were located in the city; such organisations are not necessarilyavailable for employers in rural areas.

Apprentices The GTCs employed up to 150 apprentices, spread across the four year levels.These apprentices were hired by contractors for short or long periods and could also beengaged permanently at the end of their apprenticeship.

Recruitment policy The recruitment policy of the GTC varied between the three which wereinterviewed. The NECA GTC appeared to carefully regulate the number of apprentices it

Appendix 2 86

took on, to ensure that it avoided the situation where it was unable to place its apprenticeswith contractors. At the time of interview, it had about 10-15 employers waiting for anapprentice.

On the other hand the GTC in Brisbane apparently had a ready supply of apprentices forwhom they were actively seeking placement.

All three GTC put apprentice applicants through various tests before appointment, to ensurethat they were of a suitable and of a standard which would enable them to cope with theirTAFE training.

Training policy Training was an integral part of the operations of GTC. The organisationsinterviewed tended to be conscious of the need to ensure that their apprentices were trainedacross as wide as possible a range of industry skills.

Main findings from the qualitative component

Traditional employers

Why they employ apprentices

‘Traditional’ employers is the term given in this report to employers who have employedapprentices for many years. This group of employers was asked

why they have hired apprentices in the past and why they continue to do so. Their responses tendedto fall into three broad categories: labour, costs and established practice.

Labour: Hiring apprentices each year was a way of ensuring a supply of labour for the firm,not only as junior employees but later as tradesmen on completion of their apprenticeship.Replacing staff lost through natural attrition was therefore a relatively straightforward matter.

In addition, apprentices who became long term employees provided the firm with staff‘trained in the company way’, understanding company practices, and remaining loyal to thecompany over a long period of time. Some of the employers interviewed had built thecompany from very small and modest beginnings and continued to have a strong personalinterest in the overall welfare of their employees. Others had remained small.

For both larger companies and for sole traders, hiring an apprentice provided much neededhelp on the job when it required more than one person. Those who directly employed theirapprentices tended to keep the apprentice on for their full term, whereas those who employedthrough a GTC did not always do this. The flexibility to alter their labour force strengthaccording to work needs was considered a distinct advantage for those who used GTCs. Forsome companies the GTC provided an important source of extra labour, rather than tyingthemselves to a four year commitment with an apprentice.

One GTC estimated that about 20% of their apprentices remained in the same company for thefour years of their apprenticeship. Sole traders were often unable to keep on an apprentice asthey progressed through their years of training, because such a practice would expand thebusiness needlessly and/or increase costs. These employers may be inclined to replace anapprentice who had progressed to third or fourth year with a more junior one. Otheremployers stated that they only wanted apprentices in their second or third year, as the firstyears required too much time in training and the fourth years were too costly.

In country areas there were additional issues. A well trained apprentice on completion of hisapprenticeship had the potential to either become a competitor or be poached by a largercompany which doesn’t train, whereas in the city a well trained graduate simply providedquality labour either in the same company, or in the industry generally.

Cost: Views on the cost of having an apprentice employee differed widely. Some employersconsidered that an apprentice was a cost advantage, allowing them to competitively quote forjobs (lower labour costs result from the averaging of a tradesman’s and an apprentice’s wage).These employers tended to the view that ‘if they’re not earning you money after the first few

Appendix 2 87

months, you’re not training them properly’. Having an apprentice could increaseproductivity, enable better customer service (shorter response time) and generally make thework a little easier.

Other employers were of the view that apprentices continue to be a cost liability throughouttheir years of employment. Training and supervision take time away from getting on with thejob and reduce the flexibility which sole traders have in organising their work and personaltime. Additional costs such as workers compensation were also a liability. It was consideredthat a fourth year apprentice costs as much as a fully qualified tradesman but still has to besupervised (by law). In such instances, employers would only continue to engage anapprentice for reasons other than cost (eg altruism – see below). Still others were in betweenthese two extremes – they considered that whilst initially an apprentice was not cost effective,in later years they were. Other benefits, such as a much-needed extra hand and a potentialtradesman trained in the ‘company way’, would outweigh the early disadvantages.

Established practice: Altruism was a driving force behind many traditional employerscontinuing to take on apprentices. A number of employers spoke of a need to ‘put somethingback into the industry’ as their reason for employing an apprentice. ‘Someone took the timeto train me, so I think I should do likewise’ was another response. Other employers regardedtaking on an apprentice as ‘just the way things are done in the industry’. This industry andrelated industries commonly comprise tradesmen and apprentices, a structure which hasexisted throughout the history of the industry. Underlying such a structure, however, are costand labour-related factors.

Many felt that apprentices were an important investment for the future of the industry, andalso that apprentices added youth, vitality and new ideas to the workplace. For some takingon an apprentice had resulted from having been approached by a friend or colleague, or theyoung person or his relative. In the case of those employers working closely with the NECAGTC, they may be helping out GTC apprentices needing continuity of employment.

How they employ an apprentice

Traditional employers were asked how they employ apprentices. The two methods weredirect employment and through a GTC. The type of apprenticeship could be either by indentureor as a trainee – the former type predominated.

By direct employment: Companies or sole traders who engaged apprentices directly almostnever needed to advertise for new recruits. Several larger national companies (ie up to 100employees) said they received numerous letters or phone enquiries during the year. Theseenquirers were then asked to lodge a follow-up formal application; interviews and selectionaccording to specific criteria then followed. Some companies required their applicants tosubmit to an additional aptitude and ability test conducted by the NECA GTC, the results ofwhich were input to the selection process.

One company reported that about 50% of those young people voluntarily seeking work withthe company did not reach the interview stage. The tests which they were required toundergo were designed to prove whether or not they would be able to succeed at TAFE. Theinterview tended to identify and filter out those applicants whose attitude to work may be animpediment.

Smaller companies (ie less than 10 employees) tended to have a much more informalapproach to recruitment, often initiated by word of mouth. Employers might hear of a youngperson who was interested in an apprenticeship. Providing the basic requirements had beenmet, usually at least Year 10 attained (though preferably Year 12) plus an aptitude for mathsand science, and providing the employer had the work available, they may put them on.Possession of a driver’s licence was seen as important to some employers.

The benefit of pre-vocational training was mentioned. It meant to the employer that theapplicant had an understanding of the requirements of the trade, and therefore somecommitment.

Appendix 2 88

The employer benefits of direct employment included a sense of control over who theyemploy. Some have a certain distrust of GTCs, perceiving them as ‘just another governmentbody’ and also consider that by hiring through a GTC they are less likely to develop companyloyalty and culture. Discussions with GTCs suggested that this was not a realistic fear, as anapprentice could be engaged by an employer continuously for the full term of theapprenticeship, with the potential of ‘becoming’ a committed employee. One employer wasconcerned that as a GTC employee, an apprentice ‘would have someone to complain to’. OneGTC believed that the drop-out rate is high amongst those apprentices appointed directly byan employer. However, this did not seem to be backed up by the employers who employeddirect.

Through a Group Training Company: All three GTCs interviewed had profiling systems fornew applicants. Entrance tests were considered an effective measure an applicant’s suitabilityto the industry and ability to pass the training. A NECA GTC apprentice was considered to bewell screened prior to employment by those in the industry who hired them. This GTCreported that it actively encouraged those who hadn’t passed the entrance test either to tryharder at school and re-apply, or to consider another industry which may not require such ahigh standard in maths.

In the Sydney region the NECA GTC appreared to be highly regarded and well-used by theindustry. Hiring an apprentice through this company was considered to be cheaper thandirectly employing an apprentice. In Brisbane the reverse situation seemed to apply withemployers considering a GTC to be more expensive than hiring direct (the Brisbane GTCsinterviewed were not NECA companies). As mentioned earlier, the GTC in Sydney had notrouble placing apprentices and in fact had a number of employers waiting for an apprentice,while those interviewed in Brisbane actively canvassed for host employers.

Some employers treated the GTC as an employment agency to obtain short term labour. Thismay be a disadvantage to the apprentice in terms of training. One GTC had to implement apolicy requiring a minimum hiring period. In Brisbane one GTC had difficulties placing firstyear and fourth year apprentices due to lack of experience and relative cost respectively. Itwas cheaper for an employer to hire a tradesman on an hourly basis than a fourth yearapprentice requiring supervision.

In summary, the reasons in favour of using a GTC included not only cost (in NSW), but also:

� general ease, no hassles – all screening and initial and ongoing administrative work ishandled by the GTC

� the potential to hire an apprentice with appropriate skills for the time required, without along term commitment

� flexibility to release an apprentice if they were only required for short term work or in thecase of industry fluctuations or if they didn’t work out

� release from the need to have guaranteed future work

� the potential for broader skills to be acquired by the apprentice across a range ofindustries

� ability to ensure that personality clashes in the workplace were easily handled byswapping an apprentice back into the GTC system.

Employers who were recent trainersIn contrast to traditional employers, recent employers are those who have not previouslyemployed an apprentice but have taken one on in the last twelve months. Interviews withthese employers revealed that their reasons for employing an apprentice were roughlyparallel to those of traditional employers, although with less focus on the company loyaltyand continuity aspects.

Appendix 2 89

Since hiring an apprentice their concerns were that it has now changed their potential to workflexibility, increased their need for guaranteed work, and created the responsibility to providethe apprentice with on the job training. Use of a GTC reduced these concerns because of thefallback position of returning the apprentice during difficult times. A rural employer may nothave this opportunity, however.

Employers who were non trainersEmployers who have never employed an apprentice were also interviewed, as well as thosewho have no first year apprentices now but still have older apprentices, and those who usedto have an apprentice but don’t now have one.

Those who have never employed an apprentice operated this way for a range of reasons.Essentially, these reasons were found to be the inverse of all the reasons why others didemploy an apprentice, as outlined above.

Cost: Employers who have never employed an apprentice consider that the cost to them oftime in training and supervising an apprentice on the job was prohibitive. They believe thatthey can’t ‘make money’ on an apprentice for several years, if at all, and that by contrast,hiring a qualified tradesman costs less on an hourly basis. They want someone who can dothe job without supervision and who has the skills required.

Labour: In some instances the type of work undertaken by the contractor was unsuitable foran apprentice, eg interstate or overseas locations, or major projects requiring skilled labour. Itwas ‘less hassle’ to not engage an apprentice, and if the contractor wished to remain a smallorganisation, then the absence of an apprentice helped to achieve this end.

Adding an apprentice increased the complexity of business operations and placed aresponsibility on the employer to ensure that meaningful work was available. It also requiredlong-term commitment, something which might not be possible during times of economicuncertainty.

Employers with no first year apprentices, but who still have older apprentices, had chosen notto recruit this year mainly because of their current and projected workload. One employerstill had apprentices in Years 2, 3 and 4, and if they needed first year apprentices in order tofulfil future work commitments, they would hire them from a group training company.

Employers who no longer employed apprentices were in this position either because theyoutsourced much of their work, and hence the staffing of projects was the responsibility ofothers, or because they were gradually scaling down their operations prior to retirement inthe not too distant future. They regretted that they were not now contributing to the industryby training newcomers, but had to consider their own circumstances first.

Negative views held by some of this group of employers towards apprentices included suchattitudes as ‘the kids of today don’t want to work or to learn anything’ and ‘those who havedone pre-vocational training think they know everything’. Some employers felt that youngerrecruits would be more suitable - requiring an apprentice to have year 12 was a drawback, asby this age young people had developed a disproportionate sense of their ‘rights’, and not anappropriate work ethic. Others considered Year 12 to be essential, as without it they wouldfind TAFE too hard.

The need to supervise an apprentice, especially one in first year, was seen as a particulardrawback, but necessary not only because of apprenticeship conditions, but also because ofthe strong need for safety. Some said that if they decided to recruit an apprentice in thefuture, they would engage at least a second year one, definitely not a first year.

Non-completion of apprenticeshipsNon completion of apprenticeships did not seems to be a major issue according to mostemployers interviewed or the GTCs. However, one employer was of the view that theindustry tended to lose apprentices in the middle years and that it needs to find a way of

Appendix 2 90

retaining these apprentices rather than letting them move into sometimes unrelated positionsin other industries. Many years of valuable training by an employer were effectively lost tothe industry.

Another employer considered that Years 2 and 3 tended to be the critical years, whenapprentices may be off-loaded because their increasing wages were becoming a burden withinthe overall cost structure of a company. In addition, when the fact that the work could behard and dirty became a strong deterrent, and when their TAFE course became more difficult,apprentices may leave the industry. In the situation where these year groups may not beparticularly sought after by employers because of cost, continuity of experience and trainingcould be jeopardised.

Attrition of tradespersonsIt was not possible to ascertain whether there was a view overall that tradesmen were leavingthe industry in any great numbers. Comment was made that many moved from actual tradeswork to other areas within the industry (such as retail).

New Apprenticeship CentresIt was difficult to determine whether employers had dealt with NACs as they were not alwaysreadily recognisable in this form. There were mixed comments on those that did recogniseNACs, with some commenting that they had been helpful in filling out forms while othersclaimed that they had been provided with mis-information from a NAC.

Topic guide for interviews with employers in the electrotechnology industry

AimsTo determine why employers:

� employ Apprentice initially

� employ additional Apprentice

� keep apprentices on for the duration of their training

� let Apprentices go before the end of their training

� stop employing any Apprentices after the initially employing at least one

� do not employ apprentices at all

� might be encouraged to employ an apprentice or additional apprentices

IntroductionBrief description of NCVER and the research project

Company history and demographicsGeneral company profile

Length of time the business has been established

Current standing of the business i.e. are they expanding (experiencing recruitmentdifficulties), contracting, stable, undergoing restructure

Sector they work in and the type of work undertaken

How they get their work – i.e. through long term or short term contracts, multiple contracts,government or non-government etc

Appendix 2 91

Do you have a recruitment policy, if yes what is it

Do you have a training policy , if yes what is it?

Employment profileCompany size

� number of Apprentices

� trades people

� non-trade workers

What type of skills training do they have

Type of employment (part-time, full-time, casual)

Do you employ any females? Why not?

‘Traditional’ trainerHow long have they been employing Apprentices

Are they reducing, increasing apprentice numbers, or are they stable

Why do they employ Apprentices?

What are the main benefits and negatives of employing Apprentices

Are they considering not employing Apprentices in the future?

‘Recent’ trainersWhat made you employ an apprentice?

What if any was the deciding or most important factor

Have you employed apprentices in the past?

Do you employ other unskilled or unqualified workers in the past?

If yes why didn’t you continue to employ unskilled or unqualified workers as in the past

Recruitment of Apprentices/Trainees (for both ‘Traditional’and ‘recent’ trainers)How do they recruit?

What is the quality of applicants like

What do they look for in a recruit

What are the important skills (i.e. technical, attitudinal, communication)

Do they or have they had trouble recruiting

Why dont they employ unskilled or unqualified workers instead

Direct employment i.e. not from a GTC (for both ‘Traditional’ and ‘recent’ trainers)

Why do you directly employ Apprentices instead of going through a group training company

What are the benefits of directly employing Apprentices?

What are the main benefits?

Appendix 2 92

What are the negatives

If they use both probe reasons why

Use of Group training Companies (for both ‘Traditional’ and ‘recent’trainers)

Are they habitual/constant users

What type of Apprentice do they take

How long do they usually employ them for

What governs the length of the contract

Why do they use GTC’s instead of direct employment

What are the benefits (main benefits) of using a GTC

What are the negatives of using a GTC

Have you ever directly employed an ex GTC Apprentice?

‘Non-trainers’Why don’t they employ Apprentices?

What are the main reasons and how strong are they

Is it possible these reasons will change in the immediate future, can they be overcome inanyway or at least minimised

Have they ever employed an apprentice?

If yes why don’t they know, are there previous positive or negative experiences

If no, why not, do they have any experience of any kind with Apprentices, what perceptions ifany do they have of apprentice –how do they form these perceptions

Have you ever heard of GTCs

Have they ever thought of using a apprentice from a GTC

Why do they or don’t they

Reasons for non-completion of Apprentices (all employers)Have they ever know first hand of Apprentices not completing their training

Why do they think they leave

What are the main or strongest reasons

Can these perception be turned around, how

Why skilled trades people leave the industry (all employers)Have they thought of leaving?

If yes -Why, what are the main reasons,

How strong are the reasons

Can these perception be turned around

Appendix 2 93

Possible Policy levers (all employers)Probe employers on the following issues:

Improving commitment from employers to invest in training

What are the benefits of employing a Apprentice

How can these be best articulated to other employers

How do we get more Trades people into the system

How would you change the current system of training apprentices

What do they think of the following?

� Completing say a years study (TAFE) starting the in the job training

� VET in schools ie doing the first part of the trade course while still at school

� Mature age workers, including other (non Electro) trade workers

� Are they aware of any of the above exist

New Apprenticeship CentersHave you heard on New Apprenticeship Centers, if yes how did you hear about them?

Have you used them

Did you know they provide support to employers and apprentices

Have you seen the advertisements

Red tape/Bureaucracy/paper work/administrationHow big a turn off is the associated paper work

Did you have any idea what you were getting into (for recent employers)

Are you able to keep up with the changes that have occurred over the years?

Do you have problems employing trades people from interstate?

Demand for new skill setsWhat are the new skills sets

How are these skills sets transferred to new and existing employees.

Appendix 3 94

Appendix 3

Statistical analysis of the Survey data

IntroductionIn an attempt to gain a better understanding of the characteristics of trainers and non trainersthe data was examined using three techniques.

Firstly, the data was analysed using the AnswerTree package, which has a variety of datasegmentation methods available. A second approach was to fit various linear and log-linearmodels to the data in order to identify the variables that were the most important influencesin the decision to train or not train. The third approach taken was to undertake factoranalyses on the questions regarding attitudes to apprentices and the apprenticeship system(B18 for trainers and C11 for non trainers).

CaveatsIt should be stated from the outset that there were some problems encountered whenanalysing the data.

The most notable was the number of multiple response questions asked. There is a potentialfor making false inferences from the data owing to the fact that the analyses will give equalimportance to each response even though there is no way of knowing if that is what therespondent intended.

For example suppose two respondents, A and B say, both respond “Residential” and“Commercial” to question A1 (Sector). There is no way of knowing whether the involvementof A in these two industries is the same as the involvement of B. An extreme case would be ifrespondent A was almost entirely involved in “Residential”, only marginally involved in“Commercial” and respondent B was the opposite. When analysing by sector, both theserespondents will be treated the same in both sectors despite the fact that each of them haslittle involvement in the sector that the other has a major involvement.

If the proportion of respondents who give multiple responses to a question is low then there islittle cause for concern. However, only 21.8% of respondents gave just a single response toquestion A1 (Sector). Those who gave multiple responses form a clear majority of therespondents as shown in table 1.

Table 1. Number of responses to question A1 : Sector

Number of responses 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Frequency 196 244 251 207 3 901Percent 21.8 27.1 27.9 23.0 0.3 100.0

Similar comments apply for the other multiple response questions. There is no way todistinguish which response is very important to the respondent and which is not.

Another problem was the sample size obtained. The 901 completed interviews is sufficient forexamining frequencies and simple cross-tabulations but once the sample is categorised byseveral variables, the amount of sample in any given category can get too small for reliableanalysis.

Appendix 3 95

Results of the analyses.The results of the multivariate analyses revealed nothing over and above that which wasrevealed by examining the frequencies and simple cross-tabulations.

Data Segmentation

The group of methods that comprise this type of methodology do not rely on the assumptionsthat are the foundation of classical methods. This makes them excellent tools for exploringdata regardless of the type of variables involved. Any results obtained are generated from thedata rather than being an artefact of any assumptions that have to be made in order to analysethe data.

The data segmentation methods applied using AnswerTree were particularly affected by therelatively small sample size. In particular there were problems in keeping enoughobservations at each stage of the analysis to get reliable results. Even after reducing thesample size required in order for the data segmentation to proceed to another cycle, theprocess still had problems with small subgroups of respondents (for example respondentsemploying larger numbers of workers).

Linear/Log-linear modelling

Various linear and log-linear models were fitted to the data in an attempt to discover whichvariables tended to be associated with being a trainer and which were associated with being anon trainer. The results of fitting the models were discouraging. Some of the models retainedso many terms that there was a concern that the model was actually fitting “noise” rather than“signal”. Generally, testing the validity of the models (eg residual analysis and sensitivityanalysis) tended to lead to a conclusion that the models were unreliable.

Factor Analyses

The factor analyses were also disappointing. Although it did deliver something in the way ofan identifiable result, there was certainly nothing revealed beyond the analysis of tabulateddata.

All respondents were asked fourteen questions relating to apprentices and the apprenticeshipsystem to which they were asked to agree/disagree. Factor analyses were conducted on thesequestions to examine any underlying structure in the data. The factor analysis was doneseparately for trainers and non trainers. The analysis was then repeated by splitting trainersinto recent and traditional and by splitting non trainers into those who had never trained andthose who had been trainers in the past. The analysis was conducted again after furthersplitting the existing groups based on the number of employees at the respondent’sestablishment. Once the factor analyses were conducted at this level, numerical problemswere encountered (ie sample sizes were now to small), making it impractical to examine thedata at any finer level.

The most notable aspect of the factor analyses is that regardless of the way the data was splitinto subsets, the procedure tended to identify about six factors, each accounting for roughlythe same amount of variance. There was more variability for the finer classifications, but thegeneral trend was still evident, although the factors tended to be difficult to interpret andinconsistent across the different levels of disaggregation of the data, there was however, onefactor that did consistently appear in the analysis.

The factor that was most noticeable related to the “stock of skills in the industry”. This factorappeared regularly for trainers and non trainers and persisted across the various levels ofdisaggregation. It appears that both trainers and non trainers have a common concern withrespect to the items

“training apprentices is a good way to bring new skills into the industry”

Appendix 3 96

and

“need more apprentices to replace tradesmen who are leaving the industry”.

Table 2 shows the factor loadings that the two items had on this factor. As can be seen, thefactor loadings are quite high (any loading greater than 0.6 can be considered 'high') fortrainers whether recent or not and non trainers whether past trainers or not.

Table 2. Factor loadings on “stock of skills” factor.

Trainers Non trainersTraditional Recent All Never

trainedTrained in past All

New skills 0.63 0.73 0.73 0.71 0.73 0.76Replace tradesmen 0.77 0.78 0.76 0.79 0.78 0.75

Furthermore, this opinion tends to be held regardless of the number of employees thecompany had. Whilst this factor is a clear output from the factor analyses, it does not addanything more than that which was revealed by examining the tabulated results.

Of the other factors that may be identified, there was a tendency for trainers to view theapprenticeship system as being flexible and the level of government support as adequate.However this factor tended to be confounded when the data was analysed by type of trainerand number of employees because other variables also loaded onto this factor. Other factorstended to change with the level of the analysis and also were difficult to interpret.

The results of the factor analyses are not unexpected when one looks at the correlationsbetween the questions asked of the respondents. The correlations tend to be low with manyof them near zero. This situation is not conducive to finding an underlying factor structure tothe questions.

Conclusion.The multivariate procedures used to analyse the data set have not produced any moreunderstanding of the data above that which was gained by looking at tabulated data. The bestresult was from the factor analyses and they merely tended to confirm results alreadyidentified by examining tabulated data. The analysis done on this data set should beconsidered exploratory, given the caveats mentioned previously.

Appendix 4 97

Appendix 4

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,TRAINING AND YOUTH AFFAIRS

ABN: 51 452 193 160

16-18 Mort Street,GPO Box 9880

Canberra ACT 2601Tel: (02) 6240 8111

Request for provision of quotation

A consultancy to undertake research into

employer engagement with New Apprenticeships

in the electrotechnology industry

Appendix 4 98

Table of Contents

Table of contents………………………………………………………………………….. 94

Statement of requirement………………………………………………………………… 95

1. Overview……………………………………………………………………………… 95

2. DETYA's requirement…………………………………………………………….. 95

2.1 Project outcomes ……………………………………………………………….95

2.2 Methodology…………………………………………………………………….96

2.3 Project Deliverables ………………………………………………………….. 97

2.4 Project costings ……………………………………………………………..… 97

2.5 Project management ………………………………………………………….. 98

2.6 Project deliverables …………………………………………………….…..… 98

2.7 Management process ……………………………………………………….... 98

Appendix 4 99

Statement of requirement1. Overview

In late in 1999, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr DavidKemp, met with the heads of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry(ACCI), the Australian Industry Group (AIG) and the Business Council of Australia(BCA) and instituted an industry led process designed to establish the steps thatindustry, government and the partnership of the two could take to redress industryskill shortages.

Three industries were investigated initially – engineering, automotive andelectrotechnology – and reports from the working groups from each, weredelivered to Dr Kemp at an Industry Skills Forum in Melbourne on 28 April2000.

At that Forum, Dr Kemp announced three further industries – building andconstruction, food trades and rural industries – to be reviewed similarly overthe next year.

He also announced the Government’s intention to implement action plansbased on report recommendations, aimed at minimising skill shortages withinthe engineering, automotive and electrotechnology industries. Action planswere signed by representatives of the three industries in July and August2000.

The National Electrical and Communication Association (NECA) hasidentified an issue, which in their view, was not adequately addressed in theElectrotechnology Action Plan. The issue is employer engagement. NECAcontend that if employers are not offering enough New Apprenticeshipsplacement opportunities to meet the demand for skilled labour, there is thepotential for a large gap in the national skills shortage strategy. Discussionshave taken place between the Department of Education, Training and YouthAffairs (DETYA), NECA and ACCI, regarding the issue of employerengagement and the need to commission the National Centre for VocationalEducation Research (NCVER) to undertake a research project into the issue.

2. DETYA’s requirement

2.1 Project outcomes

The primary purpose of the Employer Engagement with New Apprenticeships Projectis to identify and analyse the triggers for employers to create New Apprenticeshipstraining places. Specifically what are the reasons employers:

• make the decision to employ a New Apprentice• keep employing a New Apprentice• employ additional New Apprentices.

By identifying the reasons and processes by which employers make decisionson employing New Apprentices, the potential levers to positively changingemployer behaviour will have been identified.

Appendix 4 100

The Employer Engagement Survey will focus on the Electrotechnologyindustry. In developing the survey instrument consideration must be givento adapting the survey methodology to other industries in the future, ifrequired.Issues to be addressed by NCVER should include, but not be limited to:

• historical profile of the electrotechnology industry, including- sectors comprising the industry- size of labour force, overall and by sector- share of apprentices and trainees, overall and by sector- demographic profile of apprentices and trainees, including

AQF, full-time/part-time status, age, gender and educationalattainment

- number of employers and type (small, medium, large)• the differences in take up of apprenticeships and traineeships across

the electrotechnology industry sectors• the drivers of the decision to take on an apprentice or trainee, from

the point of view of:- employers who traditionally train- employers who have only recently decided to take on an

apprentice or trainee for the first time- employers who do not train – reasons why.

2.2 Methodology

The two most important aspects of this research project are to identify:• current level of demand for apprentices/trainees in the industry

and the potential for expansion in the number of availableapprenticeship /traineeship places

• reasons why employers choose, or choose not, to train and theassociated policy levers to influence employer behaviour.

To achieve these ends, the methodology should comprise a combination ofquantitative and qualitative research methods. NCVER is invited to submit amethodology for this project, consistent with the available budget andcomprising, at a minimum:

• Literature Review – brief analysis of recent Australian andinternational research (last 5-10 years) on the drivers of demand forapprentices / trainees and, in particular, the drivers of growth intraining numbers

• Desk research – analysis of current and historical level of demandfor apprentices and trainees in the Australian Electrotechnologyindustry and sectors, including analysis of potential for growth intraining numbers

• Semi-structured interviews with three groups of employers(traditional trainers, recent trainers, non-trainers) to identify driversof the decision to train and possible policy levers

- non-training employers should be asked what could be doneto change their decision not to take on apprentices ortrainees

Appendix 4 101

• Quantitative survey of employers to establish the relativesignificance of the drivers identified through the semi-structuredinterviews

- non-training employers should be asked about how theywould respond to the policy levers identified

- training employers should be asked to identify their reasonfor training, based on reasons given in semi-structuredinterviews

- NCVER will be required to construct a sampling frame• Multivariate analysis of survey data exploring the determinants of

the decision to train. Variables should include, at a minimum,- employer size (small, medium large)- industry sector- a measure of product demand, activity level or profitability- previous employment of apprentices/trainees by employer

(yes/no)

The multivariate analysis must be written up in plain English.

2.3 Project Deliverables

• Detailed methodology comprising:- rationale for literature review- data sources, variables and time period to be explored in

desk research- interview guide and schedule for semi-structured interviews,

including methodology for selecting employers to beinterviewed

- design of quantitative survey instrument, including approvalthrough ABS clearing house if required

- proposed method to analyse survey data and method toestimate potential for growth in training numbers

• Literature Review report, including executive summary andbibliography

• Semi-structured interview transcripts and a report summarising themain findings for the three employer groups

• Survey instrument and tabulated results in flat file format

• Final Report on survey findings, including- results of multivariate analysis- summary of literature review- issues arising from semi-structured interviews- potential for growth in employer engagement in training- policy levers to achieve growth and estimate of impact on

growth

Appendix 4 102

2.4 Project costingsThe value of the contract will be a maximum of $50,000. The exact amountwill be negotiated following the finalisation of the survey methodology inconsultation with NCVER and NECA.

2.5 Project managementThe Employer Engagement Survey will be managed by the Industry SkillsSection of DETYA in consultation with NECA.

Together with the responsibilities outlined in this request for quotation,NCVER will be responsible for gaining ABS clearance to conduct researchinvolving collecting data from employers.

2.6 Project deliverablesPayment of project funding instalments will not be made until the provision of theconsultancy services for specific funding milestones have been met to the satisfactionof DETYA and DETYA has formally accepted that the requirements of theconsultancy services have been met.

�� Present progress report on the analysis of the literature review.Present progress report on the statistical analysis and review of existing data.Oral report on progress of face to face consultations.Oral report on progress of telephone consultations.

�� Provide draft final report

�� Provide final report on Employer Engagement with New Apprenticeships inthe Electrotechnology industry. This report will include all the data collected,an analysis of the findings and recommendations for possible future research.It will also include a detailed explanation of the evaluation methodology asan appendix to the report.

All intellectual property arising from the conduct of this project will be vestedin the Commonwealth.

2.7 Management processAll aspects of the Employer Engagement Survey, including frameworks and processesto undertake the project will be negotiated with DETYA and will subject to approvalby the Department. All proposed final materials for the survey must be approved bythe DETYA following consultation with NECA.

DETYA’s involvement with NCVER will be directed through a nominated projectmanager. The project will be managed by the Industry Skills Section, IndustryTraining Branch, Training and Youth Division of DETYA.

employer engagement with new apprenticeships in the ... · employer engagement with new...

Documents